New Thoughts (06/27/17-07/02/17)
Unrelated Sidenote (06/28/17)
“Piety and spiritual doctrine do not confer a knowledge of human arts.” Calvin raises this point as he considers the innate fitness of the Christian to function as judge. What he is driving at, in that setting, is a distinction between the wisdom needed for judicial action, and the intelligence and training required for the sciences. In other words, being well-versed in Scripture, and sound in your theology is not going to render you an instant rocket scientist, to gamely apply a familiar image. I make not of it here not because I find it terribly applicable to the text, but because I find it startlingly applicable to certain streams of thought in modern Christianity.
It is not an issue likely to arise in the setting of the average Protestant church, I don’t suppose. But, head over to the wild side, where the Charismatics hold sway, and you’re likely to find those who think along these very lines. Being a King’s Kid means, amongst so many other things, that having the mind of Christ, of course I should expect to have superior insight and knowledge on any topic! Now, let’s be clear. God is assuredly all-knowing and all-wise. He is absolutely capable and willing when it comes to giving His family all that is needful to their sanctification. Nowhere, however, can I think of any promise that would suggest He was self-constrained to give us whatever wisdom and knowledge might turn us a tidy profit, or make our work-life more tenable.
There’s this perspective, such as it is, that God will toss out some ‘big idea’ that you can, if only you are spiritually aware enough, turn to your financial advantage. He’ll just drop some huge scientific discovery in your lap, or some new technical marvel, that you can then start production on and be set for life. I honestly don’t know where this comes from, apart from our innate avarice. It seems we are forever looking for Easy Street, and if we can sufficiently paganize God, we’ll happily accept Him directing us hence. How this is supposed to hold together with the painfully clear instruction to take up your cross daily and follow, I don’t know. I don’t recall Christ suggesting that cross was going to prove to be the means of great wealth. Seems to me His message was quite the contrary. “The Son of Man doesn’t even have a place to lay His head.”
We need to cast off this materialistic focus. It’s funny, in a sad way. We go to great lengths to ‘de-junk’ our homes, get rid of the old stuff we don’t use, and so on. And we are convinced this demonstrates a rejection of materialism. Perhaps we even eschew all the sundry gift-giving occasions on the same basis. No. We don’t participate in that. It’s crass. It’s ungodly. And yet, what are we looking for when we turn to God? Are we constantly praying for health? Do we take every minor illness and ache as a sign of weakening faith, evidence that God must be displeased with us? Do we still recognize that here in America, those who complain of their abject poverty are still immeasurable miles ahead of the bulk of the world when it comes to provision? If you’ve got a smartphone, a car, a computer, and so on, don’t bother telling me how great your poverty is.
But, back on course: If your spiritual life is all about improving your situation in this life, you’ve missed it. I’ll just shift Calvin’s words slightly. Piety and spiritual doctrine do not confer earthly superiority and ease. They don’t confer get rich quick schemes. They don’t impart instant eloquence, by and large. You may not have noticed this yet, but from Paul’s testimony thus far, it should be getting through that God’s not all that impressed with eloquence. That’s not what it’s about. There’s nothing wrong with skillful speech, but skillful speech isn’t evidence of piety or the fruit of piety. I had this comment down below, and couldn’t remember why, but now I see that it belongs under this portion of the comments: The Gospel isn’t about style, it’s about content.
That holds so far as delivering the Gospel is concerned. We’ve seen that laid out in the first four chapters. It also holds so far as living the Gospel is concerned. It’s not about appearing righteous and holy. It’s about being so. True piety is likely to prove to be very, very quiet. If we are in fact all about glorifying God, it’s more a mindset than it is a tendency to shout, “Glory to God” over every little thing. It may lead to that. It may not. The question is content, not expression. The question is character, not volume. The question is alethia, outward form fully harmonious with inward state, and that inward state clearly, demonstrably, home to the God of heaven and earth. Tongues are not required. Fruit is.
Connection in Context (06/28/17)
Turning more directly to the passage under consideration, one point that comes up fairly immediately is why Paul has suddenly turned to this seemingly new subject. Yes, as Matthew Henry notes, we have this somewhat tenuous connection between the very serious judicial proceedings of Chapter 5 and the trivial suits of this chapter. Per Mr. Henry, Paul is simply applying the same counsel to these lesser issues. But, I’m not convinced that’s the whole of it. Neither, given what we know of Paul, can I accept that he’s just jumping topics, even if it is by way of answering a list of questions brought to him from Corinth to judge, as it were.
Something else is going on here, and I am inclined to agree with Clarke as to what that something is. Let’s start by asking the question, not of why Paul picks up this issue, but rather why he needed to do so. For one thing, we can be sure that if he is asking if they dare to pursue civil lawsuits against their brother, it is because he knows some of them are doing exactly that. If it was not established fact, he wouldn’t need to issue such stern correctives as come through in this passage.
What then? Why were the Corinthians resorting to civil courts to deal with their fellow Christians? Was it just habit? I don’t think so. That may have played into it, but I don’t see anything in Corinth that would suggest an innate propensity for litigiousness. In fact, as several authors point out, the Jewish portion of the congregation would be well used to dealing with such matters amongst themselves, for that was standard Jewish practice, fully sanctioned by Roman law. So, that’s not it, then. No, Clarke points us in another, more contextual explanation. Remember those divisions we’ve been talking about, how everybody had their favorite leaders, and by corollary those they held in disfavor? Well, if the church is divided as to its leadership, whose judgment can be found that will prove satisfactory to all? Who is there in the church to whom all parties would willingly submit?
This, if anything, amplifies the great evil of such divisions within the house of God. If we cannot accept the discipline of our leaders, how can we be led? If we don’t trust our shepherds, whose sheep are we? Insubordination is a matter much on my mind of late, not from the church setting, per se, but rather from the workplace. The disease is much the same there, even if the stakes are not so high. But, there is a particular managerial crisis in insubordination. If that sin is allowed to go unpunished, the manager is effectively done as a manager. Can it be repaired, turned around? It’s not outside the realm of possibility, but it’s a lot like trust, isn’t it? Trust, once broken, is incredibly difficult to repair. Respect is close cousin to trust. If you don’t respect your manager in his official capacity, you’ll not give much heed to his or her instruction. It is reduced to advice that you can take or leave. If you don’t respect your manager you will, in fact, come to despise your manager. It’s that leaven of sin again.
Can it be turned around? Yes, but again, it’s most unlikely in practice. If you are the one charged with resolving the issue, the manager’s manager, you are likely to find you have to either remove the manager as inept or the worker as unmanageable. To do nothing, and just hope the two work out their differences only encourages future events of the same nature or worse.
Doesn’t the same apply in the church? Of course it does. The dynamics are different, one hopes. After all, we are called to submit one to another. Yet, there is still a hierarchy in place. There are still those whom God has set in charge over the body as His under-shepherds. They serve at His authorization, and are constrained to heed His command and direction. They are, of course, men like ourselves, and therefore inclined to fall short in that regard. But, to the degree that they fulfill their own obligations, we are obliged to submit to their direction and correction. If we will not acknowledge those whom God has set as judges in His house, we become a danger to the household. I see I am getting a bit ahead of myself, but I do want us to have this in view as we go forward.
This really does explain why Paul is taking up this matter: It’s fallout from the big issue. It’s the worsening of the disease that afflicted the Corinthian church, and it’s illustrative of the intense need for corrective action. The Corinthians have allowed division into the church. Paul is pointing out, as Barnes notes, where the true division lies: It is between two worlds – the world of unbelievers and the world of Christians. It is between the sacred and the profane.
Barnes, like others I am reading, chases Paul’s thoughts back to typical Jewish practice, particularly as he advises setting those of no account in the church to deal with these sorts of issues. There are notes regarding the hierarchy of Jewish judicial practice, at the bottom of which were the unauthorized judges. These were men chosen by the conflicted parties to listen to their differences and offer an unbiased judgment which would be accepted by both parties. They were not officials. They were not court-appointed arbiters. They were just men of sound judgment, deemed trustworthy by those who were at odds.
Now, another aspect of Jewish practice was that taking their matters before civil court was an abject failure. Let me just quote Barnes on this. “He that tries a cause before the judges of the Gentiles, and before their tribunals, although their judgments are as the judgments of Israelites, so this is an ungodly man.” That was the Jewish sensibility. If you took recourse to these pagan magistrates, you were not winning your rights. You were demonstrating your own ungodliness. But this wasn’t the worst of it. To take such an action was, in their view, to profane the name of God. Why is this? I think Paul’s application to the Christian church here makes it pretty plain. The fact that you have taken this path demonstrates to an unbelieving world that the God of the Jews – or in our case, the God of the Christians – is incompetent to deal with such matters Himself. He cares so poorly for His own that they have to look elsewhere for Justice. What could be worse testimony to the God Who IS Justice?
Now, as another side-note, as I read that assessment of Jewish understanding, it struck me that this only exacerbates the case of Jesus’ treatment by the Sanhedrin. Yes, they may have been constrained, at least officially, by Roman law. Yet, it’s pretty clear from other events, like the stoning of Stephen, that they largely ignored such legal constraints. If they felt the need to impose the death penalty, they would find a way. But, here, they insisted on taking Jesus, the very Son of God, before the Roman magistrate Pilate, for judgment. Think about how Pilate reacted to this, at least before they more or less forced his hand. This is a religious matter. Why are you bringing it to me? Rome has granted you permission to settle such things yourselves. Do so. Now, we add this; that from their side of the equation, they were profaning the name of God by their actions, demonstrating themselves – the Sanhedrin – as ungodly men with no concern for God’s name. Is it any wonder that they found themselves judged in response? How could it be otherwise! They had presented the condemning evidence all by themselves. Even if this had been, say, Peter or John instead of Jesus, that would hold true. In fact, their later treatment of James, like what happened to Stephen, would demonstrate the truth of it. This is a piece of that final week picture that we miss, largely for lack of knowledge as to the societal context, but it is stark once you see it.
Fit to Judge (06/29/17)
The overall thrust of the first six verses here is that their actions belie God’s assessment. Calvin is succinct on the matter. God said they were capable judges. They effectively said they were not. The thing that Paul is driving home is this: As a believer, you not only should be capable of deciding these sorts of disputes, but you in fact are capable. If God has assessed you as able, you are. Notice the way this is laid out. Don’t you know the sorts of judgments God has decided you will be making? Don’t you know you’re going to be judging not just the whole world, but angels to boot? The nature of those questions indicates that such knowledge is to be assumed. Of course you know this! And knowing this, how can you even consider such actions as you’ve been taking?
The answer is inescapable. These folks weren’t resorting to the courts for lack of capable men in the church. The reason for their misdeeds lay somewhere else. Perhaps, as Clarke suggested, the divisions in the church rendered them unwilling to listen to any in-house arbiter. Notice where the problem is, though. The arbiter is capable, but the litigants are unwilling. It’s an issue of willingness. Perhaps the situation in the church was so bad at this point that nobody was willing to act as arbiter. But, again, the issue isn’t one of capability, it’s one of willingness.
If I may be permitted to expand this to a more general principle, it is this: Our problem is generally not one of capability, but of willingness. God says we can do this or that, indeed insists that we should. Yet we, like Moses before us, seek to talk Him out of it. Surely, You mean somebody else, Lord! I’m not equipped for any such task. Evangelize? Me? I stumble over my words in those situations, even if I can get past my innate shyness. Surely, you have somebody more outgoing and quick-witted to send. Pray? Me? But, I can’t stand public speaking. I’m more of a behind the scenes guy, Lord. You know that. Why would You want me to do this? Surely, there’s another who could better lead such prayer. The list is endless. Indeed, I suspect that whatever it is we discover the Lord is commanding us to do, our first reaction is to remind Him of our inadequacy. As if He weren’t perfectly aware of that, and in fact making certain we are, too! After all, whatever it is He is telling us to do, it will be by His might and power, if it is to be done to any good purpose. As a believer, we had best believe this: We are capable of that which God commands. The issue is ever one of willingness.
Now, Paul amplifies this point in regard to his current topic of judging disputes and disagreements. There is a surprising amount of debate and discussion as to the syntax of his advisory in verse 4. Is he commanding them to go to the least capable amongst them? Is he simply making a statement that even this is more likely to produce a beneficial outcome? Different translations, I note, arrive at different conclusions. I think that in some ways they are all of them valid, and perhaps the ambiguity is intentional.
From the NASB perspective this continues to cast a disapproving eye upon their current practice. When you turn to the courts, don’t you see that you are appointing over yourselves judges of no account, as concerns the church? These judges are worldly, unbelieving men. Why would you turn to them to judge the godly, when the godly are appointed to judge them? What are you thinking? From another angle, the suggestion is that any member of the church is, by the very fact of their being a member of the family of God, better equipped and better qualified to serve as judge between fellow members of the family. The least of you is sufficient for this task. We will turn to the propriety of even pursuing such matters later, but supposing you must address the issue, how is it that you find it needful to look outside the body for redress?
Now, as to the question of whether he is actually advising them to raise up their least valued members as judges for matters amongst believers, I find that a hard argument to make. Yes, these are secondary, if not tertiary or lesser matters, and can therefore be entrusted to somebody besides the elders to resolve. Even the deacons could probably be spared the duty. Just pick somebody that’s not directly involved, inform him of the facts of the dispute and let him advise you. It doesn’t need more than that. But, nothing about this precludes selecting somebody whose wisdom, particularly as God measures wisdom, is already well-established.
Rather, Paul’s turning to the least of the membership comes as a rebuke to the puffed up spirit that has plagued the Corinthian church. Again, we’re right back at that original issue. You account yourselves as having such wise teachers, being so super-charged with knowledge from the Holy Spirit, and gifts, and every imaginable evidence of God’s great pleasure in you. If your teachers are so great, your leadership so wise, and everybody in the house such a hot ticket for Christ, how is it you can’t manage to find even one member who could decide these ridiculous matters for you? There’s not even one in your number whose judgment would be heard with confidence? If that’s the case, if you have to go outside the house for judicial wisdom, on what basis are you boasting of this great wisdom and intelligence that you possess? You apparently don’t.
Here, as the Wycliffe commentary notes, is great irony. You who esteem yourselves so wise can’t find so much as one wise man among you when the need for wisdom arises. You’re supposed to be the cream of the crop, aren’t you? If the Church is to judge angels, you’re pretty sure you’ll be the chief magistrates on that bench, right? And yet, you can’t settle a dispute regarding who sits where? You can’t sort out a disagreement and bring brothers back to concord with one another? You can’t resolve differences as to the direction the worship team has been going? Away, then, with your boasting, for it’s clearly vanity and wind!
Now, before I move on to the next topic, there is a point that Clarke raises which I would consider. Looking at this call to deal with our issues in-house, Clarke advises that if there is somebody in the church who will not submit to such proper arbitration by a fellow member, then that one ought to be expelled from the church of God. That sounds harsh, doesn’t it? Really, Adam? You want to excommunicate a brother because he won’t accept another brother’s decision? That seems a bit anxious to exercise ultimate authority, doesn’t it? I’m not sure I can bring myself to agree with such a conclusion. But, I can at least understand it.
There is a fair amount that must be assumed before we get there, but I think we have grounds for those assumptions. First, we will need to accept that such forms of brotherly arbitration are indeed authorized by Christ for His church. This passage would certainly suggest that such arbitration is to be preferred to civil suit. That in itself advises a degree of authorization. A proper reading of Matthew 18:15-17 would seem to concur, to the degree that it applies. The context there is one who sins. I have to say that not every offense we perceive against ourselves constitutes actual sin. It may just be benign disagreement, or at least it should have been benign. If we have doctrinal differences over secondary issues, does this require us to suppose one view or the other is sinful? It’s possible, but it’s not necessarily so.
But, let it be accepted that such arbitration is indeed authorized. Let us suggest, to go a step further, that in your case, such arbitration has been called for by the church leadership. You two need to work this out. Go to so and so and let him assess and advise. Listen to him. He’s a wise man and he will be fair in his answer. Well, chances are that his answer, however wise, however fair, will be less pleasing to one party than the other. If it’s a matter of facts, one of you is going to be found wrong. If it’s a matter of tastes, one of you is going to be asked to live with something less than your ideal preference. Let’s allow that the dispute is not something so inane as carpet color, but a matter of at least some serious importance. The church has authorized brother Ted, or whomever, to decide. He has decided. Now you, being on the losing side, refuse to abide by the decision. Nobody said anything about a court of appeals, though. Perhaps it escalates to the elders. Perhaps, just perhaps, the original decision is so egregiously wrong that they find it necessary to overturn.
In civil courts, this would hardly surprise, would it? We see it all the time. You don’t like this court’s decision, you appeal to the next. But, eventually you arrive at the Supreme Court, and no further appeals are to be made. What will become of you if you refuse to abide by their decision? At minimum, you can expect penalty. Most likely you can expect imprisonment. Well, what is imprisonment? It is being expelled, at least temporarily, from society. I don’t know that we see it that way as clearly as we ought. It used to be pretty plain that those in prison had forfeited their civilian rights. They had been excommunicated, as it were. Go back a bit further in time, and it would not be unthinkable for criminals of a certain sort to have been exiled from the country, even if they were natural-born citizens. You don’t wish to abide by the laws of your country? Then, perhaps it ought not to be your country. This is something other than the, “America: Love it or leave it” sentiment. This is what it means to live in a society governed by law.
Come back to the Church. The Church is also a society governed by Law, even if that Law is under grace. God is not an anarchist. He establishes authorities, both for civil jurisprudence and for the administration of His Church. He calls pastors and elders. He appoints overseers and shepherds over His flock. What the mechanics of that process may look like to our eyes will differ from one polity to another, but the fact remains unchanged. God appoints authorities, and He expects them to be heeded so long as they do not exceed that authority given them. If the least of His children is fit to judge, and you have been appointed to submit to their judgment, what should He do when you refuse to submit?
I’m back at the insubordination issue again. I’ve been watching this play out at work, and watching as one involved in the issue. There is, as with any organization, a hierarchy of management, and then there are those who are the managed. The managed have, in at least a few cases, reacted to their managers in what should fairly be unconscionable ways. Sadly, I must count myself amongst those few and, while repentance and pursuit of forgiveness are rightly the course I travel, and I have done my best to do so, this is not to say there ought not be repercussions. Yet, those repercussions have not come. The rebels have won, in some degree, and the upper management has sought to steer towards some sort of no-fault solution. The team leads who have been up in arms against their manager are still leading. The manager, who assuredly has fault of his own, is still managing – just not that team. The guy who tried to tell of the VP (not me, thankfully), is still there, but may be shifted to another team. It amazes me that not one of those involved in either of two separate incidents has been terminated. The manager has not been backed, but neither has he been sacked. The insubordinate workers have, by all appearances, been allowed to walk away unscathed. How can this be permitted? Is it possible that all the issues will somehow disappear or resolve themselves in this fashion? Well, nothing’s impossible. But, I have to say it is highly unlikely that said manager can ever achieve the respect he is due having been successfully bucked in this fashion. It may be that those workers who have seen their anger lead to solutions in some way will have shocked themselves so much that they would not do it again. On the other hand, success tends to embolden, as we are seeing in other aspects of society.
Recognizing that the Church consists of those drawn from society, and still bearing all the characteristics of that society, why would we think things should work differently here? Are we called to be merciful and forgiving? Of course. Are we called to just let everybody do what they want? Not a chance! Scripture has taken a decidedly dim view of those periods in the history of God’s people when everybody just did what seemed right in their own eyes. After all, what seemed right in their own eyes almost never was. God has put us in this body because we need the wisdom of the whole body. God has set us under authority because we need that authority to check our own wild impulses. God has established authorities to serve His agenda. If we reject those authorities, we effectively reject God. Why, then, should we expect less than to be evicted from His kingdom? Is excommunication really too severe a response for such behavior, or is it the necessary preserver of order? The answer, I find, is not so easy as I would like. Or, perhaps, it’s simply that the answer is not as I would like.
Who and How We Judge (06/30/17-07/01/17)
Continuing our considerations of Paul’s statement of known doctrine here, it’s surprising how much we find it unknown and almost unknowable. Questions abound. Which saints will judge? Is it all of us, or just the first generation saints? In what way do we judge the world? Are we to render verdicts ourselves? Are we only talking about our full accord with the decisions rendered by Jesus? Are we discussing the impact of our presence in the world? Which is in view? And angels: Which angels? Is it all of them, or just the fallen ones? Or, as at least some conjecture, is it Paul’s intent to consider the ministers of the church, and how they assault the devil’s domain by their preaching? That brings us to questions of when. Are we talking this life or the final day? All of these questions are evident in the various commentaries, and the answers are as varied as the authors.
Let’s see if we can settle the when part, because I think that will help us address other aspects of this common knowledge we have apparently lost along the way. In that regard, I would focus our attention on the fact that both with regard to the world and with regard to angels Paul writes in the future tense. It’s not the unspecified, one time action of the Aorist. It’s not the continuing action of the Present. It is Future; something that has not as yet happened or begun to happen. This would seem to at the very least eliminate Clarke’s conception of ministers despoiling the devils by the preaching of the Gospel. To be sure, that is an impact of sound, biblical preaching, but it is not something Future. It’s more Present Tense in nature: A constant of Christian life and practice.
Insomuch as this judgment is spoken of in the Active Voice, I also have difficulty accepting the JFB’s conclusion that we should construe this as indicating judgment comes ‘by means of’ the Church. That would seem to indicate a more passive role, or at best a Middle Voice role with Church and Christ acting in concert. Again, this is certainly to be the case, that Church and Christ function in concert and concord, but it’s not the point Paul is making, is it? It’s not the idea conveyed by the syntax and grammar he has chosen under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So, thus far, we have a future event in which we shall actively participate. We are not doing it now, and we are not merely the tools used to achieve justice. The saints (however they are to be enumerated) shall at some future point have an active hand in adjudicating the lives of the worldly, and the actions of the angels.
Can we settle the scope of who is included as the saints? I think we can. In fairness, I think the only reason it even rises to the level of a question is because we are constantly pointed back to Matthew 19:28 as the basis for Paul’s assumed knowledge here. Let me just quote that verbatim from the NASB. “And Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’” Well, that certainly implies a limited application, doesn’t it? Twelve thrones would seem to limit this to twelve judges, and that is in keeping with the twelve Apostles, and the twelve gates of Revelation. But, is this in fact the basis for Paul’s argument? If so, would he not have trouble counting even himself amongst that number? After all, the twelve positions were already filled before he came along, even discounting Judas. Judas has been replaced, and the number satisfied. Paul was the thirteenth Apostle. He was also Apostle to the Gentiles. That being the case, references to judging the tribes of Israel might not be a good fit for him.
Let’s turn instead to Paul’s own use of the term in this letter. Go back to the greeting. “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours” (1Co 1:2). There’s your definition. The saint is the one called by Christ, sanctified in Christ, and calling upon the name of Christ as their Lord. The saints are ‘all who in every place’ satisfy this definition. I think we can reasonably expand that to include all who in every time satisfy the definition. This is, then, a blanket statement in regard to the true Church, whatever may be said of the passage from Matthew. This, it must be noticed, fits quite nicely with the argument Paul is making. Every last one of you, if you are indeed a Christian, shall be involved in this process of judgment of men and angels; from the least to the greatest. That being the case, who among you ISN’T fit to assess such trivial matters as you’ve been taking to court?
So, now we have a who and a when: All of us at some future date will be involved. Can we identify the objects of our judgment? We have the world and angels. The world, I think we can readily understand as all humanity who fall outside the subset called as saints. It is, has been said, a matter of two worlds, or two kingdoms: That of the Church, and that of not-the-Church. If we accept that division as concerns the earthly, I don’t think it unreasonable to suppose a similar division as concerns the heavenly. Granted that the term angels can be applied both to those who have kept station with Christ and those who have rebelled and gone with Satan, there is in that reality already a clear division, and it is hardly necessary to suppose that every use of the term refers to both. In plain point of fact, I think it is very rarely the case that both are included. Here, as the world depicts fallen and unredeemed man, it seems quite reasonable to take angels as referring to fallen and unredeemable angels, which is to say demons.
Stop and consider that for just a moment. The least significant member of Christ’s body, the Church, whether we choose to take that as meaning according to our assessment or according to His, will be an active participant in meting out justice upon these fearsome, powerful, eternal beings. Picture this. There are many in the church who would aver that the infant who dies, the stillborn, dare we say, even the aborted child must surely be saved, redeemed by Christ through some miraculous intervention on His part, because it would simply be unfair of Him to condemn those who have not as yet had occasion to sin. I am not convinced of this, given that Scripture’s declaration is that we are conceived in sin. At the very least, we should have to accept that these little lives are not innocent any more than we are. But, this doesn’t preclude Christ’s intervention in the womb to achieve the salvation of at least that portion of them who are amongst His elect. So let it stand. Here is this little life, weaker than weak, and incapable of the first act of self-defense. And this little, insignificant creature will, like the wisest elder or even Apostle, sit in judgment over these fallen angels! That’s something, isn’t it? And you, O, Corinthians, can’t find somebody from your number you trust to consider your issue? Sigh.
OK, we have a question remaining, and that is what is in view in this judgment in which we are to take active part. Calvin takes this to be a symbolic, almost prophetic action. The Church, he holds, is already the image of future judgment, the earthly image of Christ’s tribunal. Thus, he concludes, the world is judged in the Church. There is value in this perspective, but I don’t see that it accounts particularly well for the Future Tense in which Paul sets the action.
Matthew Henry, and Barnes as well, see this not as passing sentence, but being in accord with the sentence pronounced by Jesus. Mr. Henry assures that we, too, will be judged, and that first. I could note that Scripture indicates that judgment begins in the household of God (1Pe 4:17); family first, outsiders afterwards. That fits, then, doesn’t it? We are judged and acquitted. We then take our place at the bench ‘to approve and applaud the righteous judgment of Christ both on men and angels’. At the very least, I think we should have to concur with Barnes that Christ alone passes sentence. That is not an authority He shares out to all. Again, turning back to Matthew 19:28, we might require an understanding that the Apostles have some share in this, but it would be a stretch to seek to apply that throne-seated task of judgment to all believers in all ages. Granted, the parallels are attempted. As the Apostles to the twelve tribes, so the Church to all humanity; but one must look for just cause to allow that expansion.
To be sure, the same verb, krino, is in view, and that is assuredly the term of judicial trial. But, it does also take the sense of approval and opinion, and in fact has that meaning as its more primary sense. That said, it’s pretty clear that we are looking at a judicial application here. But, what may help is to see that Paul’s view is not primarily to the question of authority to judge, but rather considers having the intellectual capacity to properly weigh the evidence. The least of you is capable of providing a godly assessment of the facts; that’s the conclusion he delivers.
The JFB seems to take a slightly different course, firming up on Calvin’s view. They make the bold statement, “What Christ is and does, the Church is and does.” At some level, I would that this were true. It is certainly the ideal. We are after all, disciples of Christ by very definition. We ought, both individually and in concert, do as Christ does. That does not, however, require us to suppose that we therefore do absolutely everything in precisely the same manner and magnitude as our Lord. If we did, we should be gods ourselves, and part of following Him is acknowledging that the servant (which would be us) cannot excel his master. Whatever one may make of His promise that we will do greater things than He has, it cannot lead us to suppose we are somehow His equals or, perish the thought, His superiors. That’s not holy fervor. That’s pure ego.
Where are we left? Unsettled, I should think. We are left sadly short of knowing the things Paul assumes we should know. That being the case, I am inclined to err on the side of caution. If we come nearer the views of Henry and Barnes, I think we do well. We shall understand and approve; Christ alone shall judge. We are capable of properly weighing the cases, such that we can appreciate the majestic justice in His decisions. But, we are not possessed of the final authority required to decide the case. That authority is His and His alone. Could it be that I am wrong about this? Sure. What results? We still approach this life with wisdom and humility, addressing such issues as may come before us as those who find themselves fully equipped by Christ to do so. But, we are not arrogant. We do not look upon the lost around us, or those who wrong us – whether family or outsider – and see those we shall one day have under our power as we render the final verdict. No. “Vengeance is Mine”, sayeth the Lord (Dt 32:35, Ro 12:19, Heb 10:30). We shall not usurp His authority by taking vengeance in hand ourselves. Indeed, even in addressing these lesser cases, we must take care that vengeance has no place in our hearts or our thinking. Justice is all, and mercy where possible.
What transpires if we err in the other direction, and suppose ourselves truly appointed to sit in judgment, rendering binding decisions in regard to creatures great and small? I’ll say this. If we suppose such authority in our present state, I fear for us! Far be it from me! I also find it utterly impossible to harmonize such a viewpoint with the passage just cited. God is not insane, and He would have to be in order to set so great a power in the hands of a people still so far removed from holiness. Do we resolve that by keeping this pointed at the Last Day, when we have become truly like Him, perfected unto glory? That will certainly help. But, I would remain greatly concerned as to the impact of such thinking upon our present. This does lead to arrogance. This leads to arrogating to oneself a power wholly unwarranted, and assuming an authorization not given.
We can see this play out, because it does. For Calvin’s era, the urge would be to turn our eyes upon the abuses of Rome. See what happens when man usurps the place of Christ, and sets himself as equal in authority? But, Rome is not alone in this. It’s a disease far more common. What else can be supposed to have happened when our prayers turn to commanding God, or commanding angels? I see the latter happen often enough, but where is the Scriptural support for this? Really? You have authority to commission angels and post them where you will? Show me your orders! When I think upon such things, I am perpetually drawn back to Joshua’s encounter. “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” he asked. The answer? “No. I come as captain of the host of the LORD.” (Josh 5:13-14). Get this straight. The angels do not serve you. They may serve to your benefit and for your protection, but they are not by any stretch at your beck and call. They are not yours to command. They are the servants of Christ and Christ alone. To suppose otherwise is to fall into magical thinking, at best, to become arrogant usurpers like the devil himself at worst. What do you think his crime was, after all? How can we be so quick to attempt a repeat?
But, enough. Let’s get back on course here. Whatever the case with these greater issues to which Paul directs our thoughts, the situation is clear enough with regard to these lesser, earthly matters. To the fullest extent permissible, the church should judge its own. This is not something restricted to ecclesiastical matters or theological debates. This covers the full range of civil concerns, at least up to the point where just civil law has been broken. I’ll consider that further in the next section, but we aren’t dealing with the sorts of issues for which God authorizes and appoints civil authorities. We are talking about minor disputes, offenses, and disagreements. Perhaps your brother owes you for some loan made to him, and has been slow to repay. Perhaps he merely said something you found offensive, maybe even libelous. Maybe it’s even an issue of property. Even here, I think, we find the message is the same: Resolve it in house. You will get better results and greater satisfaction, even if you happen to find yourself on the losing side in the case. You should be assured of the justice of the decision, and you should yourself be capable of recognizing that justice once you’ve calmed down a bit.
The larger picture for me is that God has blessed us with community. The Church is community. This is why we speak of the Lord’s Supper as communion, and why our strictest disciplinary action consists in excommunion – expulsion from community. This community is indeed a blessing, for all the challenges it brings. Like any family, the blessing may not always be a felt blessing, but it is absolutely real nonetheless. The community is also here for mutual support. We should be able to turn to one another for advice. We should be able to disagree and discuss without taking offense at a difference of opinion. We should, if we can’t resolve our disagreement between ourselves, be wise enough to seek a third, disinterested party to hear and advise, and we must, if we care for the harmony of Christ’s kingdom, abide by that one’s decision. Either God is in control or He is not. If He is, and He has thus directed us to act, we must surely accept that the results thus attained are according to His pleasure and purpose. If we refuse to abide by them, what does this say? It says we refuse to abide by God’s decision.
Does this, then, require that we blindly follow whatever leadership attains? By no means! We follow no man farther than he follows Christ. The leader in the church who leads away from Christ has already lost his authority, and ought rightly to come under the authority and jurisdiction of the church himself. Discipline is top-down. We must also accept that Christ will deal with the one at the top. If we see that one left in place who ought not to be there, perhaps – with abundant prayer and fasting and clear direction from Christ – we ought to see it as time to leave what has become a synagogue of Satan and seek out a church that remains true to Christ. But, that is an act, I think, every bit as serious as excommunication. Would that more people viewed it as such.
Legal Recourse to Legal Recourse (07/02/17)
Now, with all that has been said about keeping our disputes in-house, we might be forgiven for concluding that we ought never to turn to the civil courts on any matter, but this is not the case. We must remain mindful that the same Paul who is so fervently advocating for resolving things ourselves also tells us that civil authorities are there for a God-ordained purpose (Ro 13:1ff). They are there with the sword for a reason: To serve as God’s instrument of vengeance upon those who do evil.
This points out two matters that must have our attention in regard to civil law. First, though the civil court is God’s instrument for vengeance, should we have occasion to resort to that court, we are not permitted by God to do so from desire for revenge. Recall that this precedes Paul’s approval of civil authority: “Never take your own revenge, beloved. Leave room for the wrath of God. For it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine. I will repay. For your part, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, provide drink. Thus you will heap burning coals upon his head.’ So, don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Ro 12:19-21). This does not, however, require that you avoid the courts. It only indicates the mindset with which we are permitted such recourse: A desire for Justice. Here, I think we might even side with those who seek for judicial actions to be of a nature that will tend toward reforming the criminal rather than eradicating the criminal. But, I would maintain there is just exception for capital offenses. Murder, by God’s decree, demands forfeiture of life by the perpetrator.
Calvin allows that we are permitted pursuit of legal recourse and can make such pursuit without offending God under this one condition: That no desire for revenge corrupts the mind. He does, however, proceed immediately to note the rarity of any individual being capable of fulfilling this requirement. Matthew Henry is more willing to see this course pursued, saying, “We are not bound to sit down and suffer the injury tamely, without stirring for our own relief.” Here, I think we must be careful to observe the distinction in cases. Paul is speaking of such lawsuits as see to resolve a wrong, or to gain restitution for fraud. There is cause for anger, perhaps. There has been a loss suffered, whether to reputation or to property. But, Matthew Henry is discussing matters of injury. That may seem a fine line, after all, a loss of property or reputation would, under Mosaic Law, fit under the head covered by “Thou shalt not kill.” But, I think we need to recognize a distinguishing line here, in the nature of the act. The one may take in the gullible or insult the proud. But, the other is indeed inflicting physical, bodily harm.
In this latter case, we are not only permitted to seek justice. As Barnes argues, we are duty bound to see that justice is served. He starts with an observation. “Courts are instituted for the settlement of the rights of CITIZENS, and people by becoming Christians do not alienate their rights as citizens.” Personally, I think that line of reasoning could be argued against, at least in some degree. Yes, we retain a sort of dual citizenship, but in becoming Christians we have established that the kingdom of Christ is our homeland to which alone we owe full allegiance. Bring back Romans 13, however. As all the nations of this earth are effectively subservient to His kingdom, and as the leaders of those nations are leaders only by His authorization, we are commanded by our King to obey theirs. But, citizenship? “Our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself” (Php 3:20-21).
Recognize who that was written to and why! Philippi was a city of the emperor, granted to account its citizens as full citizens of Rome. This was great privilege. You are not a subjugated people. You are not merely freeborn. You are citizens with full rights in Roman civilization. Paul doesn’t quite renounce that. After all, he would make use of those citizen rights himself on occasion. But, he points his charges to a higher status to which he himself obtains. Sure, you’re a Roman citizen. Big deal. You are a citizen of heaven’s kingdom, a child of the most high God. What is Rome compared to that?
But, let me return to Barnes, because the point he arrives at is one I think we do well to recognize. He concludes that the Christian actually owes it to country and family, as well as to himself, to see that justice is upheld. He takes us to the two most egregious crimes that he is willing to contemplate: That of murder, and that of theft. If somebody murders your wife or child, you are not going to leave that unaddressed. It would be a great injustice and a danger to the community to allow such an act to go unpunished. This does not, I should note, require a thirst for revenge. It does require a love of God’s justice tempered by an appreciation of God’s mercy. Theft may not seem so huge a deal to us, being not so far separated from fraud, which Paul suggests is not cause for the courts, at least in personal cases. But, again, I think we must recognize a tinge of violence in the charge of theft.
I could also accept that in cases involving wire fraud or the like, if we are able to see justice done, it is our duty to do so. Likewise, in our day and age, we must contemplate matters of sexual violence. Here, too, though it may not be a murder case, it is a case that we would be fully justified in taking to court. We would be more than fully justified. We would be duty bound. The Christian is called upon to be a model citizen so long as doing so does not require him to violate God’s dictates. A model citizen loves his neighbor as himself, per God’s own law, is it not so? Do you love yourself enough to see that the one who would do violence against you is legally restrained from doing so? I’m sure you would. Well, then, that perfect Law of God would assuredly appear to require that you do all in your power to see to it that such a one can do no violence against your neighbor, either.
The Sin of Impatience (07/02/17)
Paul’s conclusion here may seem over the top to us. You should prefer to bear your loss rather than to so treat your brother. OK, I can grasp that much. But, “You are in fact defrauding him by going to court!” How does that work? It would seem to assume an entirely incompetent judiciary, which may very well have been the case there in Corinth, I suppose. But, to make a blanket statement that every civil judge is necessarily corrupt would seem too much by far. How can we be expected to respect and submit to a legal system that is that corrupt? Well, in plain point of fact, we can. The instruction of Scripture does not indicate that we heed civil authorities only so long as they are upright. WE aren’t upright! No, we are called to heed them so long as they don’t require us to violate God’s Law, which is to say so long as they have not voided their authority by insubordination.
We must remain mindful of the nature of the cases Paul has in view. Go back to the case he is making. Here are the things you will be judging in future. By comparison to such weighty matters as the eternal disposition of the soul, the sorts of things you’ve been litigating here are scarcely worth naming, let alone pursuing! Oh! There is a message worth generalizing a bit!
Here is a sentiment that we would do well to apply to more than matters of legal recourse. How about matters of prayer? How about our conception of God’s nature and God’s purpose? He has concerned Himself with your eternal estate, and where is your attention? I’ve got an ache, Lord. Could You fix that? It’s awfully muggy out. Couldn’t You arrange for some drier weather? The grass is withering, perhaps You could fix Your sprinkler system so it happened at night? We’ve got a gazillion little complaints to make, or requests if you wish to feel more pious. But, where’s the focus? It’s light and momentary trials, unfit to even be considered as trials. Even if we take something more serious, say a battle with cancer, or forfeiture of property because of some downturn in the economy, what is that compared to the eternal disposition of the soul? Even if, as the prophets-for-hire love to announce, doom is on the horizon, dark days are coming, and we’re all going to die! Well, yes. We are. But, what is that to the Christian? To live is Christ. To die is gain (Php 1:21)!
Returning to the simpler matter of legal cases, Paul’s conclusion should rightly be horrifying to us. “You are utterly defeated.” That’s the strength of verse 7. Even if you should win the case, you lose. The Church loses. You have done damage to God’s reputation in the eyes of an unbelieving world. You have, were it possible, potentially caused one of the elect to turn from God. “By this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” (2Sa 12:14). You have been defeated as to your testimony to Christ, which is of infinitely greater import than whatever piddling little matter you were pursuing.
There is, in this anxiousness to get to court, a sin of impatience, as Calvin points out. If you can’t control yourself sufficiently so as to suffer these minor injuries patiently, what else is that but impatience? What is our remedy? If it is not the courts, what then? I would maintain our preferred remedy, as Paul sets forth here, ought not even to be that we seek recourse to an impartial third party in the Church to resolve our differences. This, too, would seem to fall into being ‘utterly defeated’. You demonstrate your own spiritual immaturity and lack of wisdom in thinking this was the wise course. No, the wise course is this: Refuse to take offence.
Notice where Paul winds up in this letter. It’s a passage familiar and dear to one and all in the church, and largely held in the same regard beyond the church. “Love does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered” (1Co 13:5). Compare and contrast. What is on display here? Account for every wrong! Be instantly provoked, and seek your own to the fullest extent permissible by law. However minor the complaint, make sure to exact fullest revenge. Love, dear friend, is nowhere to be seen. You are utterly defeated. It’s a total rout. If you would prefer to live the victorious life that so many advertise for Christianity, here is the place to start: Refuse to take offense. Refuse to be wronged.
“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two” (Mt 5:39-41). There’s the instruction from your Master. There’s the roadmap for victorious living in the Spirit of your Father in heaven. Indeed, He goes farther. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He causes His sun to rise on evil and good alike. He sends rain upon righteous and unrighteous alike” (Mt 5:44-45). There, then, is your victory. It’s not an easy one, but it sure is satisfying.
The Nature of the Crime (07/02/17)
We have already touched on the nature of the crime, here, but let’s review and set it in proper perspective. Barnes asks the question that these Corinthians ought to have been asking themselves, and by way of application, we ought also to be asking ourselves. Which would you prefer? Which do you find more appropriate? Shall we expose ourselves to injury, or shall we expose Christ to injury? Whose cause is of greater concern to us, ours or His? Considered in this light, I should think the correct answers are obvious. Of course, as His servants, we must consider His cause greater, we must care more for His person and reputation. We are, after all, but servants. Yes, we are family, but we are servants, and we do well to let that remain at the forefront of our thinking. Family may presume upon privilege where a servant never would.
Matthew Henry gives us sound advice, as well. “The peace of his own mind, and the calm of his neighborhood, are more worth than victory in such a contest, or reclaiming his own right, especially when the quarrel must be decided by those who are enemies to religion.” Refuse the offense! Reject every attempt of our true enemy to stir up divisions amongst us. Consider every brother as more important than yourself. Do you see the pattern here? Love them. Take no account of wrongs done to you, and worry more, if you must worry, about doing wrong to them. Seek, with all that is in you, to promote your brother’s peace of mind. So far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men (Ro 12:18). And, by all means, see to it that you defraud no one!
Let me just divert for a moment on that thought. To defraud another is vile. All of society would, I think, concur, at least if there was the least possibility that they might be victim of the fraud. They might incline to discount the crime if the victim is a corporation, but that’s more evidence of their fallen state than of sensible thinking. But, in personal matters? Nobody will uphold fraud as a virtue. Indeed, what will render the crime more vile is if it be discovered that the one you cheated was your own brother, a member of your own family! That’s the point in view. “Brother goes to law with brother.” Whatever his crime, you are only making it worse. The action you are taking is so utterly reprehensible that, like the man who took his father’s wife back there in Chapter 5, even the pagan society of Corinth would have found it intolerable. You did what? And you want to set yourself as holding the moral high ground? Get serious!
But, I would take our thoughts in a different direction in closing out this study. Let’s back up from this internecine warfare, and look at the big picture. This is not, after all, a letter addressing some one or two individuals who were messing up. This is a letter to a Church that is messing up. What’s the problem? Let’s go back to verse 4. The least among you should have had sufficient wisdom to recognize the problem. This is beyond the picayune matter of resolving personal differences between a couple of brothers. This is a critical matter of leadership. Your much-vaunted leaders, with all their superior intellect and wisdom, didn’t even notice this developing! They didn’t even pay attention to it, or consider the ramifications. Their charges, God’s sheep, are taking each other to court, and these brilliant shepherds don’t even notice that something’s wrong with that picture!
Let’s understand that Paul’s issue here is not with the civil authorities, as if they were wholly incompetent to render a just judgment. Experience dictates that they are capable, if not entirely consistent. The same could be said of ourselves. No, the issue is not with the judgment of civil servants. The problem is the lack of judgment in the church. Whether we chase that down to the loss of respect that comes from the root issue of divisiveness in the church, or whether we take it down a different path and arrive at the root of pride and arrogance (which is actually the same root that lies behind those divisions), the problem is not outside the Church. It is inside. The Church that has lost its own judgment is in dire straits. The Church that does not recognize its standing and its duty can do nothing for its own, let alone for the lost.
Our every prayer, therefore, ought to be that God, through Christ Who is the sole head of the Church, would so act upon His own that they do judge soundly, that they do see to the necessary discipline of His house, that they do recognize the danger to His sheep and take the necessary steps to see those sheep back to safety.
