From Gentle Admonishment to Exclusion from the Church: The Relevance of Paul's Pastoral Care of Sinners in First Corinthians for Churches Today
Introduction
This study of the arrogant in the church in
Corinth provides a Biblical precedent for what might be the next step for
orthodox Christians in the Anglican and Methodist Churches in our day. It also applies to other denominations that
have already divided between the revisionists promoting sin and the orthodox
who have, by and large, left to form new denominations. Having spoken the truth in love over many
years, Paul’s response to the arrogant faction in Corinth provides an example
of good practice for believers concerned to follow God.
We live at a momentous time, not unlike the days
of division of the Church in the 11th and 16th centuries,
but with much more at stake. Already in
the first days of the Church, however, certain issues showed themselves that
illustrated both what types of issues would divide the Church and how believers
ought to handle them. Paul’s first
letter to the Corinthians is one of the Biblical texts that gives us this
insight. Paul had been made aware of a group
in the Corinthian Church that was promoting various things to divide the
Church, including sexual immorality.[1] One way in which he describes this group is
to say that they are arrogant. This
group was attempting to build a church that was not built on the foundation of
the Gospel that Paul had proclaimed when establishing the Church, and they were
building with materials of their culture, such as sexual morality, which would
result in an unholy building rather than the temple of God.
Contemporary readers of 1 Corinthians 4.21 are
likely taken aback by the roughness of Paul's words. He says, 'What do
you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of
gentleness?' How should we understand this? Cultural context is
important to understand the mention of a rod of punishment. Also
important is reading the context of this verse from 4.14 and further into
chapter 5--the chapter break is unhelpful. Finally, the gravity of the
issue explains Paul's strong language. First Corinthians 4.14-5.13 is
an instruction for the Church about what to do when gentle admonishing
fails. The presenting case is one of practicing sexual immorality and
those approving of it.
Paul and
His Relationship to the Corinthian Church
Paul wants to relate to the church as a parent to
a child. He had planted the church in Corinth, and he is, after all, the
apostle to the Gentiles. Such a relationship involves three things in 1
Corinthians 4.14-21. First, it would allow Paul to admonish (νουθετῶν)
them as 'my beloved children' (4.14). Second, it involves children
imitating their father. Thus, Paul sends another of his children in the
faith, Timothy, to remind the others of his 'ways in Christ' (4.17).
Third, the parental relationship would also allow him to discipline his
children when they went wrong. When disobedient children do not respond
to gentleness, physical punishment may help. Thus, Paul asks, 'Shall I
come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?' (4.21).
The role of the father overlaps with the teacher,
and Paul claims both roles. He admonishes the congregation, reminds his
children in the faith of his own conduct so that they will imitate him, and
disciplines them when necessary. A couple passages from other writers in
the culture show this disciplinary role of the teacher. In Aristophanes’
play, Clouds, Socrates says, ‘This man is ignorant and brutish--I
fear, old man, lest you will need blows’ (476).[2]
Also, Plutarch mentions that Cato’s teacher was more inclined to use reason
than to thrash him (Cato the Younger 1.5). Parents, not just teachers, teach their
children. As the parent of the church in
Corinth, Paul teaches the congregation through admonition, imitation, and
discipline.
Paul, of course, is not speaking literally.
He extends his metaphorical role of parent-teacher to include the punishment
that people expected in the culture of his day. Yet he does threaten the
arrogant in the church with discipline of some sort. What was this arrogant group all about?
The
Arrogant Faction in Corinth
Paul uses the word 'arrogance' several times in 1
Corinthians. His first use in 1
Corinthians 4.6 will be discussed shortly.
This word links the discussion in chapters 5 and 6 to what is said in
chapter 4. The chapter break between 4
and 5 may appear to introduce an entirely new subject--but it does not.
Chapter five clarifies what the issues under consideration about the arrogant
faction are. Paul says several things
about this arrogant group. First, the
arrogant group have become puffed up because of Paul's absence and thinking he
was not returning (4.18). This is an attempt to take control of the
church and, as we shall see, it has to do with a false teaching about
sexuality, if nothing else. We might expand the point and note that, when
the arrogant in the Church today try to shuffle Paul off the platform so that
their sexual ethics might be approved, they are doing the same thing that the
arrogant faction in Corinth were trying to do.
Second, the arrogant are making a certain
argument in the church. The ESV's translation in 4.19 may mislead.
It says, 'I will find out not the talk of these arrogant
people but their power.' The word translated 'talk' is 'λόγον.'
Paul's point is not simply that this faction is arrogant in the sense of
mouthing off as though they were in charge of the community and how they could
live, but that they have some sort of reasoning that is opposed to
Paul’s. They are arrogant enough to present an argument in opposition to
Paul. Just over the chapter break, we read, 'It is actually reported that
there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even
among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are
arrogant!’ (5.1-2a). Just what the argument of the arrogant group in the
Corinthian church was actually emerges in chapter six. Their slogans are, ‘All things are lawful for
me’ and ‘food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food’
(6.12-13). Both of these erroneous
teachings may have stemmed from important early Christian discussion topics
about the Law: the nature of Christian freedom from the Law, the Jewish
question about clean and unclean food, and whether Gentiles need to abide by
these laws. The arrogant group has taken
a stance: they claim that they do not fall under any Law, and they reason that
sexual ethics is like Jewish teaching on food—no longer relevant for the Church. That is, they are free from any restraint in
sexual ethics. Thus, their teaching is
not only false but also ‘arrogant’ in their rejection of an external authority
(cf. 4.6). Paul’s response in chapters
5-6 explains that the sexual ethic of the Old Testament continues in effect for
Christians even more so because there are now additional reasons for Christians
to follow it. To the Old Testament laws,
such as in Leviticus 18, there are now the Christian arguments that:
1. The body is for the Lord and the
Lord for the body (6.13)
2. God will raise us up in the
resurrection (6.14)—i.e., embodied existence is God’s plan
3. Our bodies are members of Christ (6.15),
so flee sexual immorality (6.18)
4. Our body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit (6.19)
5. We are not our own; we were bought
with a price (by Jesus’ death on the cross) (6.19b-20a)
6. We should glorify God in our bodies (6.20b)
There is no new sexual ethic from
what is found in the Old Testament. What
is new are additional, Christian reasons for holiness of the body.
Arrogant
Builders Create Division, Set Themselves Up as Authorities, Choose a Different
Foundation from Jesus Christ, and Build with Poor Materials
The
Builders
Paul presents himself and Apollos as servants in contrast to arrogant leaders in the Church. In 1 Corinthians 4.6, Paul says that his illustration
of Apollos and himself in chapter 3 was so ‘that
you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be
puffed up in favor of one against another.’
He had stated in the previous chapter that, while the Corinthians had
jealousy and strife among themselves (3.3), he and Apollos had laboured in
unison (3.8) as fellow labourers in God’s field (3.9). Changing the metaphor, Paul says that there
is only one foundation to be laid for the building that workers are
constructing, the foundation that he laid of Jesus Christ (3.11). Paul presents himself and Apollos as mere servants
(διάκονοι), not as persons with their own, independent authority. One might imagine an arrogant ‘builder’
calling those who insist on not going beyond what has been written a ‘ginger
group,’ as Archbishop Justin Welby did of GAFCON.[3]
The Foundation of Jesus Christ
The authority foundation
of the Church is the Gospel: Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1.23). One common feature of arrogance in the Church
is when people seek to build on a different foundation, constructing their own
version of the Gospel. The arrogant in
the Church invariably challenge this foundation. They question one aspect of the Gospel or
another: the incarnation of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the need for Jesus’
death on the cross, the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and so
forth.
Going Beyond
Scripture
Also in 1
Corinthians 4.6, Paul says that the arrogant go beyond what has been written (ἃ γέγραπται).
We might translate this as, ‘what stands written,’ a common way to refer
to the authoritative word of the Scriptures (which, for Paul, was the Old
Testament).[4] The arrogant were dismissing the sexual ethic
of the Old Testament, showing themselves to be puffed up in their ‘going
beyond’ the Scriptures.
At
times, debate in the Church is characterised as a debate between equally
authoritative interpreters. This is not
Paul’s view. He does not regard his
opponents as carrying equal authority as himself. He is the apostle, the witness to the
Gospel. They are not. Those ordained in the Church today who claim
an authority based on their office are mistaken. Ordained persons carry authority only as
persons who pass on the teaching of the apostles. This should be especially clear in
denominations putting weight on apostolic succession. An archbishop does not have authority because
he steps into a high office but only because, as someone in that office, he
passes on the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Someone in that office who does not uphold
the faith but supports some innovation, as we see today in the case of false
teachers who promulgate a new teaching on sexual ethics, even though holding
the office of priest, bishop, or archbishop.
Arrogant, false teachers teaching a sexual ethic replicating the culture
and defying the Scriptures was not only the problem that Paul addresses in 1
Corinthians but also elsewhere in the early Church (e.g., Jude; 2 Peter 2;
Revelation 2-3).
Building a Holy Temple
A test for what one
builds on this foundation is whether it produces holiness. Paul explains that the building being built
on the foundation of Jesus Christ is the temple of God, that is, the people of
God in whom God’s Spirit dwells (3.16-17).
Those who oppose the holiness of the Church set themselves up as the
defenders of the unity of the Church because they misunderstand ‘unity’ as
communal fellowship, not unity in the faith.
First Corinthians is not a letter merely about unity but about how unity
is to be attained. It is attained only
by building on the single foundation of Jesus Christ and by building a holy
temple in which the Spirit of God dwells.
(Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 2.13-22.)
Later in the letter,
Paul describes what destroying God’s temple involves when he says that people
engaged in certain acts and holding certain dispositions will not inherit the
kingdom of God:
Or
do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor men who practice homosexuality [better: ‘nor soft men nor homosexuals’[5]], 10 nor
thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you
were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6.9-11).
Note that the
last verse describes the ‘temple’ of God’s people as washed, sanctified, and
justified (ESV; better, ‘made righteous’) by Christ and the Spirit. Returning to ch. 3, then, we see that some
attempt to build on the foundation of Christ not the righteous life that
produces the temple in which God’s Spirit dwells but something else altogether.
The Arrogant Are Unloving
The arrogant
group in the Corinthian church is also reminded that love is not arrogant
(13.4). Earlier, Paul spoke to the issue
of division over eating food offered to idols (chs. 8-10). Paul takes the position that Christians may
eat food purchased in the market even if it had been sacrificed to idols. He qualifies this permission if such an
action could lead a weak brother or sister back into his or her idolatrous
beliefs and practices. No Christian,
however, was to participate in a meal involving idolatrous worship. From archaeological artifacts, we know that this
might involve participation in a meal for a party held at a temple or
shrine. In this matter, the arrogant
have the right theology about idols—that they are nothing—but the wrong
approach to the issue. They are willing
to revile weaker Christians still under the spell of pagan religion and to
present themselves as the stronger Christians with their superior theology (‘knowledge’
that puffs up, 1 Corinthians 8.1). They
may even sin by entering into worship involving other gods. (Arrogant Anglicans have done so when they
invite Muslims to participate in Christian worship services.)
Another aspect
of the Corinthian faction’s arrogance had to do with their viewing some with
certain gifts above others. Gifts were
supposed to create a unity in the church, however. By understanding that our individual gifts
produce a unity in the church, we can safeguard ourselves from the arrogance of
some who have a more presentable ministry (1 Corinthians 12-14). Paul allows that one gift should be sought in
particular, but this gift is for the whole church. By seeking the gift of prophecy, we will
upbuild, encourage, and console others in the Church (14.3). While Paul does not use the word ‘arrogant’
in his discussion of spiritual gifts, he does explain in the middle of his
discussion that love is not arrogant (13.4).
Given the
adornment of office holders in Anglicanism and
the arrogance of so many false teachers holding these offices, this may be
a good occasion to renounce vestments in the Anglican Church and present to the
laity the idea of service that Paul
speaks of in ch. 3. (Sackcloth would be
far more appropriate than ornate mitres and robes, but a simple servant’s cloak
would convey the right theology in the orthodox wing of the Church.) There can be no denying that clericalism
feeds arrogance.
People can and
do claim that they are seeking to show love to others and not being arrogant
when they, in fact, are not. Too often, arrogant
people seem to occupy the high ground of Christian ethics when they refuse to
call sin sin and give license to the choices of others, no matter what
Scripture says. They present themselves
as loving in not insisting on their own way in defining sin (1 Corinthians
13.4-5). However, they are arrogant
because, on this view, they position themselves above the Scriptures and the
apostle’s teaching. They make themselves
out to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Thus, Paul continues in his definition of
love: love ‘does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth’
(13.6). Love is not license, nor is it
the affirmation of others’ choices (cf. Romans 1.32). It is ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians
4.15).
Dealing with the Arrogant in the Church
The Power of the Kingdom of God Confronts Arrogant, False
Teaching and Sin
In dealing with
the arrogant in the Corinthian Church, Paul not only mounts arguments but also
expects the unrighteous to encounter the power of the kingdom of God
(4.19-20). There is a spiritual dimension to the battle against false
teaching and sinfulness in the Church. As
we read past the chapter break, we know that encountering the power of God
involves exclusion from the Church (5.2). In addition to this, we see
later that it can also involve judgement in the form of sickness and even death
(11.27-30). That is, these Corinthians brought the social practices of
their culture into the community of Christ gathered as the Church such that
some had nothing to eat or drink while others had plenty. That the church is a place to exercise divine
judgement is also confirmed in 1 Corinthians 6.1-8. Therefore, while Paul's threat to bring a rod
to deal with the arrogant in the church was not literal, he expected God's
power to bring judgement on these people even in his absence. The Church has disciplinary authority (cf.
John 20.23; Matthew 18.17-20).
In chapter 5, Paul calls for an exercise of
spiritual authority in the exclusion of the person committing sexual immorality
that some arrogant persons have approved. He says that he has already
passed judgement on this person (5.3). Next, he says that the Corinthian
church should deliver the man over to Satan 'for the destruction of his flesh,
so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord' (5.5). They are
to do this when they are 'assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus,' with Paul
present in spirit and 'in the power of the Lord Jesus Christ' (5.4).
Since Paul earlier said that the man should be removed from the church (5.2),
this deliverance over to Satan must mean putting the man out of the fellowship
of believers, leaving him in the hands of Satan. If the church is a holy
temple where God’s Spirit dwells, then being put out of the church is to be
delivered over to Satan’s sphere.
Since Paul
hopes for the man's spirit to be saved, the purpose of this judgement is not
only for the sake of the church--that they might not be unclean before the Lord
(5.6-8)--but also for the man himself. Without judgement, the man would
think his behaviour was acceptable before God, and he would continue in
it. The 'destruction of the flesh' does not mean death but the destruction
of the appetite of sexual immorality that the man has indulged, i.e., sleeping
with his father's wife in disobedience of Leviticus 18.8. Paul's initial
description of the man's sin uses the general term for sexual immorality
(πορνεία) before he explains the particular sin. This allows him to
teach the Corinthians that not simply this man's sin but sexual immorality in
general--largely the subject of Leviticus 18--is something intolerable in the holy
Church of God. ‘Sexual immorality’ leads
the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 5.11.
Paul says that, if such people claim to be Christians, the church should
have no association with them.
Teaching on
Sexual Ethics
Teaching Christian sexual ethics was foundational
to Paul's ministry. In 1 Thessalonians, we see that, as part of their
evangelistic and church planting ministry, Paul and his team taught new
believers 'how you ought to walk and to please God' (4.1). As Paul was
ejected from the city before he had established this church, he sent Timothy
back to the church 'to establish and exhort you in the faith' (1 Thessalonians
3.2). Finally, Paul wrote the letter to remind them again. The
first thing that Paul mentions as a reminder of his teaching was that they
should abstain from sexual immorality (πορνεία, 4.3). The focus on
sexual immorality is understandable: Jewish and Christian ethics was
counter-cultural. Gentiles coming into
the Church needed to be educated in Christian sexual ethics. Inevitably, this challenge turned up as false
teaching in the Church, as it does today in a post-Christian culture.
Similarly, Paul sent Timothy to the Corinthians
to remind them of his ways in Christ (1 Corinthians 4.17). One of the
ministries of Timothy, then, was to teach Christian ethics, including sexual
ethics, in the young churches that Paul's missionary team established.
Ostracism
from the Christian Community
If this teaching failed to bring a transformation
in the church, Paul expected that he and the church would exercise discipline
and, if necessary, ostracism from the community. The church is misunderstood in Paul’s
theology when it is said that it is just a community of sinners who have
experienced God’s grace. That is only
part of the truth, but it is not a description of their ongoing life in
Christ. The church is a community of persons
‘sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,’ as Paul addresses even the
Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 1.2), called to be holy and blameless before
God (Ephesians 1.4). To make this point,
Paul speaks of the Church as cleansed from the yeast of sin and ready to
celebrate the Passover with sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5.7-8). This meant, among other things, refusing to
associate with anyone bearing the name of ‘brother’ who is guilty of sexual
immorality or other sins (1 Corinthians 5.11-13). This would refer to persons continuing in sin
without repentance or a desire to change.[6] Sinners who had turned to Christ were washed,
sanctified, and made righteous by the work of Christ and the Spirit (1
Corinthians 6.11).
Conclusion
Thus, Paul’s strong warning to the Corinthians that
he might come to discipline them came because some in the church opposed his
teaching on sexual ethics, among other things. One of the differences
between the Gentile world on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other
was their sexual ethics. As Christianity sought to include both Jews and
Gentiles together in the Church, much teaching was needed about
sexuality. Not only were gentle admonition and teaching important, but
also Church discipline. Persons set on continuing in sexual immorality
were to be excluded from the Church, and those arrogant, false teachers in the
Church who supported sexually immoral persons for whatever reason were to be confronted
with the power of God.
In our day, with false teachers abounding in what
were once orthodox, Christian denominations, it bears saying that another of
the sexually immoral sins in the list of such sins in Leviticus 18 was the very
one that is now approved by the arrogant revisionists: homosexuality
(18.22). Paul’s pastoral care progresses from gentle admonition and
teaching to disciple for recalcitrant sinners and the arrogant false teachers
offering approval of the sinners’ sins.
[1] The two oft-repeated sins
of Israel in the Old Testament prophets were idolatry and sexual
immorality. These sins were related in
the fertility cults of Canaanite religion.
Also in New Testament times, the culture’s religion and sexuality was a
major challenge for the people of God.
[2] Aristophanes,
‘Clouds,’ The Comedies of Aristophanes,
trans. William James Hickie (London. Bohn. 1853?).
[3] Cf. Rollin G. Grams, ‘GAFCON the “Ginger Group”?’ Bible and Mission Blog (23 June, 2018);
online at: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/gafcon-ginger-group.html. Stephen Noll, ‘Contention 3: Is GAFCON a
Ginger Group?,’ (April 22, 2018); online at: http://contendinganglican.org/2018/04/22/contention-3-is-gafcon-a-ginger-group/ (accessed 22 June, 2018).
[4] The perfect tense carries
the meaning of something in the past that continues in some way in the
present. In this case, what was written
in the past continues to be authoritative.
[5] The ESV translation
collapses two Greek words into one, ‘homosexuals.’ The first word is malachoi, meaning ‘soft men.’
This had a clear and rich usage in antiquity. In this context, it has a sexual connotation,
and in antiquity it could refer to persons with a lack of self-control who let
their sexual appetites control them. It was
also used of men who maintained a life in the manner of women, what is now
called ‘transsexual’ or ‘transgender.’
Note that this word has to do with orientation or disposition. The second term has to do with acts and is
rightly translated ‘homosexual’ in today’s English. It is a compound term stemming from two
adjacent words in Leviticus 20.13. It
refers to two men lying together as a man with a woman. There is no qualification of this, such as
pederasty. The act itself is condemned,
not some feature of relationship: a loving, committed, and mutual homosexual
relationship would not make this act any more acceptable. Rather, the deeper the commitment, the more
serious the sin.
[6] Christians who fell into
sin, rather than embraced sin and refused to change, could be restored with the
help of more mature
believers (Galatians 6.1). The background is likely Leviticus 19.16-18: ‘You shall not
go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against
the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. 17 “You shall not hate your brother
in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur
sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against
the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am
the LORD.’ Cf. Matthew 18.15; 22.39.
Comments