Paul states the sin in the church at Corinth is so bad even the Romans would consider it wrong. (See this post on Corinth as “Sin City.”) Why is the immoral man committing a sin like this? Most scholars think money is the main issue. Perhaps the wife was from a wealthy and prestigious family, and she is trying to divorce his father. The younger man attempts to keep any money or property in the family as long as possible.
A second, more remote possibility is that man is exercising his freedom in Christ. It appears some early Christians believed they were free from the Law, so in order to demonstrate that freedom, they “sinned that grace may abound.” It is possible the young man was trying to prove his freedom from the Law by breaking a very strong taboo and engaging in an ongoing affair with this step-mother.
So why has the man not been arrested and charged with the crime everyone seems to know about? In order to prosecute, the husband would have to sue for divorce. If this was an arranged marriage between wealthy families, there would have been complications in setting the marriage aside.
Bruce Winter points out only the husband has the right to prosecute in this case. There is a sixty-day period for him to do this, after which someone else could potentially bring charges. Perhaps the exclusive period has not expired when Paul is writing, or maybe no one is “wronged” by the relationship, and it is being passed over because of the man’s position and power.
Additionally, if the husband was not a believer, the church didn’t have any sway over him to get him to press charges and exile his son. Because the penalty included loss of property, perhaps the man was not willing to prosecute and possibly forfeit some of his own property.
If this suggestion is correct, then there are two strands of culture that the church is struggling with: sexual sin and the favoring of the rich in the courts. Paul wants to deal with the sinful man within the church itself rather than dragging this ugly situation into the public courts. This has the potential to create an unfortunate principle that Christians who have grave sins ought to be tried in a church court and not by the government, making it possible for some crimes to be covered up by the church. But this was not Paul’s intent at all! Ironically, he is not trying to cover up the sin but deal with it in a public and open way.
How does this idea of dealing with sin “in-house” work in a contemporary context? I am not advocating ecclesiastical courts, nor should people who have broken the “law of the land” find refuge in the church. But there is a need for local churches to deal with some issues like family. But this has caused huge problems when a church tries to cover up a legal and moral issue by dealing with it “in-house.” (I am thinking of sexual abuse by church staff or priests, etc.) Based on his reaction to the young man in an incestuous relationship here in 1 Corinthians 5, I am certain Paul would have dealt with a pastor who is a sexual predator harshly. “Hand him over to Satan” may very well refer to handing his man to the civil authorities and letting him face the full penalty of the law. In a modern context, no church should be sheltering a sexual predator; they should be handed over to the state and prosecuted as sex crimes.
But for issues like petty insults and personal disagreements, Paul does not want these brought to the law courts. If your brother in Christ gossips about you and harms your reputation, you should not sue him for slander. Deal with that kind of an issue inside the church.
How do we draw appropriate applications between the first century and the twenty-first century with respect to church discipline? Does the modern church offer more grace and mercy to the wealthy members of the community and treat the poor harshly? In many cases, the modern church is quite like the Corinth of the first century.
There are so many similarities between the first century church and today. I also think you bring up a great point about how the wealthier are treated with more favor in the church today. As Paul addresses church discipline, with both sexual sin and nonsexual sin, there is something for everyone to apply to their own lives. Paul also addresses this in a sense about the arrogance of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:2). They are letting people pass them by without anything being resolved which is causing more issues in the church. It seems to me they feel like they can brush off their sin with no consequences, and their arrogance displays that. This is similar to the modern-day church because many people misuse the grace we’ve been given as a free pass to break whatever law there is, knowing that they can get away with it. It’s like they want to test the people of the church to see if they will be judgement or harsh towards them, while they are the ones pushing the boundaries.
I think America has the mentality today that wherever someone is in life is because they did it to themselves. I see this in the divide of wealthy vs. poor status and how the wealthy most like can “cover” their mistakes while the poor can’t afford to do so. Whether that’s with having kids, losing a home, or even things like not having food or good clothing, even Christians can immediately go to the thought process that this was the one person’s fault that this happened. Which is completely untrue. They may just not have the resources to prevent things like that. Even looking at many churches in our area, they never reflect the part of town they are in. The people who may be “poorer” or different than us are never the ones sitting next to us in a church, and I think that reflects the work we must do to not only accurately represent the population around us, but also reflect what heaven will look like, with people from all different sorts of backgrounds and experiences. It is time that the church seeks the lost and those who are different than us, so there is no divide between any possible difference in the body of Christ.
I liked how you mentioned that they think they can just brush off their sins because they are forgiven or whatever reasons they may have. Even today people know that their forgiven. I think this is related to modern day because we do it, but on a much smaller scale. We do not as bad sins like little white lies because we know it’s not that bad and we are forgiven. We might steal something small from somebody without thinking twice about it. Maybe we think were forgiven or it isn’t as important but we just brush it off. We won’t lose sleep over it. I also liked how you mentioned that we have the mentality that we are where we are because of our actions and choices. While I do believe this to be true a little bit, we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Everyone is faced with different circumstances. If you were in that persons shoes dealing with all they have to, more than likely you would do the same thing. The last thing I liked is how you said the church should seek the lost and different. We are all created in Gods image so we should treat each other the same no matter what their social status may be.
The concepts, ideas, and questions of this post are extremely thought-provoking. However, as I read through the post, there was one thing that caught my attention as a bit of a dispute, and I wanted to offer some insights as to which side of the dispute I support. The post indicates that some scholars believe that money fueled the sexual sin that the Corinthians partook in. The post indicates that other scholars believe that the Corinthians felt justified to sin in a sexual manner because they wanted to demonstrate their freedom from the Law. After reading Longenecker & Still’s (2014) chapter on 1 Corinthians, as well as reading Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, I tend to support the idea that these citizens of Corinth were motivated to demonstrate their freedom from the Law.
That being said, I would like to propose the idea that these people felt justified to act and sin this way because they felt as if their sanctified status eliminated their need to act and behave a certain way. A personal quest for honor was a major staple to the society and city of Corinth. According to 1 Corinthians 1-4, there were many factors that were attributed to one’s honor; many of these factors were identities or statuses that represented a specific individual. Some of these identities included one’s socioeconomic status, family background, occupation, education, racial background, etc. Another one of these statuses refers to whether or not a specific individual was considered sanctified in Christ.
On this topic, Longenecker & Still (2014) write “Perhaps the attitude of pride that was transpiring emerged as a consequence of a view that, as “sanctified” people who were not restrained by “the law,” they could adopt even the most morally dubious lifestyle without compromising God’s great pleasure toward them” (p. 122). These authors continue to speak about the pride that is shown by the Corinthians during this time in history. They seem to attribute this sense of pride to their sanctified status. Again, in a society that is dominated by honor, specific statuses take control of one’s life, including their attitude and how they carry themselves. This quote from Longenecker and Still (2014) is very revealing about the selfish nature of the Corinthians, along with their prideful attitude. Paul touches on most of this topic in 1 Corinthians 5-6. The quote connects with the blog post’s initial thoughts about the Corinthians demonstrating their freedom from the Law, but it also mentions an idea that they feel as if they can act however they would like because of their sanctification in Christ.
This idea that Christians and those who are sanctified and living in relation with God is not supported Biblically, but I believe it is something that many Christians believe in, whether it be some areas of their lives or others. Often times, one can hear Christians say, “well I can do this because it’s not near as bad as what he/she is doing.” This is not a healthy mindset, and it does not please God, but I do think the Corinthians followed this mindset. Christians need to be a light to the rest of the world and live in a manner that honors Christ. Of course, Christians are not perfect, and they will sin just like non-Christians will. However, Christians should never embrace a morally-dubious lifestyle because of their relationship with Christ Jesus.
Throughout reading this blog post what came to me was how caught up the American culture is in sex and wealth. I say this because I am American and have grown up here my entire life. From advertising and even down to conversations with those around me, sex and wealth are top favorites. Even in passing I have heard individuals say, “If I had more money…” and it is like we are never happy with what we have. It is because the American culture is always coming out with new things and we just want to keep up with the time. We overindulge and idolize the access we have with what’s new. 1 Timothy 6:10 says that money is the root of all evil. We live in a culture that seems to never be satisfied because we are a selfish people. When it comes to wealth, well we see that as the next best thing if that is something we do not have. “He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income…” (Ecc. 5:10).
With sex just the same, always wanting more because when you have sex you always crave more. The problem with craving more is that if you’re not married you are meddling outside of the word of God. When you’re outside of the word of God, the devil will pick at you repeatedly. We want what we want and if we do not have a relationship with Jesus, the word of God will mean nothing. What the flesh wants is what the flesh gets. That is just the mindset of those in society today and even with the Corinthians. Paul was telling them what is good and true, but they chose to act out in flesh because they knew of God’s grace. God is gracious but we are not to test Him. Living in our old ways is not what God calls us to do. In regard to sex, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 says, “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body”. As brothers and sisters in Christ, this scripture here needs to be a focus point in the church.
In the church I have not seen favoritism between the poor and the wealthy. I have been raised and taught to love everyone. Treat others as you would want to be treated. We are all children of God, but we all find ourselves in different circumstances. Outside and inside the church, individuals need to know that their circumstances do not define them, and that God loves them so much. He sent His Son to die for us all and we can all walk in step with the Spirit. Paul is just trying to press into those hearts of the Corinthians that they must follow the word of God if they want an intentional relationship with Him. We can not serve man and God. Colossians 3:23 assures us of this by saying that we are called to work heartily for Jesus and not for man. Matthew 6:24 starts off by saying no one can serve two masters. God uses Paul to remind the church in the first century and twenty-first century that we are to love all. As Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, we need to love others, as it is the first commandment, no matter where they come from, poverty or wealth. With what God has equipped us with we must share with those who think they are doing what is right.
The biggest issue in discussing this passage within 1 Corinthians is the differences in culture, law, justice systems and norms between first century Roman Empire and modern-day church of America, i.e. Grace Christian University (but for you PLong, it will always be Grace Bridal College). The biggest issue that can be addressed in this passage is the fact that a man sleeping with his stepmother is not entirely taboo anymore. While listening to my mom discuss her soap operas, through vaguely listening I have discovered that in many, many, MANY instances on these shows that stepparents often sleep with their stepchildren. Often it is a young stepmother who sleeps with her stepson who is older than her (TV has become very weird everyone). TV drama shows have almost normalized infidelity within relationships, and even has partially normalized stepparents sleeping with their stepchildren. America is okay with this as long as 1) the two parties are not related by blood and 2) the stepparent leaves or divorces their spouse and then creates a relationship/marriage with the stepchild. All of this very unbiblical, but it does happen, often with the famous and wealthy. In the ancient world this was much more taboo and disrespectful to the parent of the child (Longenecker). Simply reading this post has given me a headache trying to understand how all of this mess could end well if a divorce were to happen. Ultimately, it would be best if the family could simply work this out internally. This would allow for this mess to be minimal and not create bigger riffs among family members. This passage of course could be taken out of context, as stated earlier in the post with the issues of the church covering up pedophilia throughout the decades. Paul is not stating that the church should never get involved with the law. It is important to protect those who cannot protect themselves, such as children, born and unborn, the elderly and those who have mental development disabilities. I am sure that Paul would have no problem with reporting pedophilia to the authorities if he were still alive today. The issue that Paul is stressing is that those who are Christians (those outside of the church do not apply to church standards, this is stressed throughout Paul’s letters) are to attempt to deal with disagreements, disputes and wrongs with one another rather than continuing to resolve disputes the way they did before they were part of the church. The church is set to a higher standard than those who are outside of the church. This includes trying to use conflict management skills to solve issues, such as talking it out with one another, maybe bringing in a mediator and offering forgiveness and repentance. This would be the best case scenario, as it could result in the child repenting of his sin, the father offering forgiveness to his wife and son and the marriage and family relations being saved.
The culture in the first century compared to the twenty first century is very different with all the advancement we have made, but even with all these advancements we still have a lot of similar problems. One thing I liked about this post is the input from the scholars about how money is the main issue. 1 Timothy 6:10 says “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” I know myself personally think that if I have more money that my problems would go away and life would be better and I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. It’s hard to shake that mindset because the need for wanting money can make you lose your faith. I think money can mask your problems or hide your problems because it gives you a better status in life and the way people view you are different. I see it everywhere I go that people with more wealth are treated better than people who are poor. The view on poorer people in today’s world is that they did it to themselves and get viewed much more scummy than rich people. Richer people can get away with more because of this or even being able to buy your way out of something. There is also a similarity with sex. The way we talk about it and the advertising that uses it to lure people in is a big problem in today’s world. In both cultures having so many different still have some of the major core problems.
In the church we value wealthier families or people over people who are poorer which is wrong. As Christians we might view ourselves as better moral judges, but we still judge people wrong and treat them differently just on economic status. This is something that even though we know is wrong we do it in our subconscious and act on it without even realizing it. Longenecker says this about Paul “ For Paul, one’s sexuality is bound up with ones spirituality, rather than being separate from it. “ (pg122) he goes on and talks about how sexual practice is part of one’s identity and that a damaging sexual practice emerge from perpetuate a fractured spirituality (Longnecker, 2014). Building a better relatio0nship with god can help fix a damaged sexual identity. We should wait until marriage to have sex and if you don’t that is a sin. The more you practice these wrong doings the more you fuel your sexual appetite. If you work on it with God this can be an issue you fix. This was a very good article about similarities from first century and 21st century within the church.
Having attended church my entire life, I can say that money is a big topic within the church. A church needs money to keep existing, but many today receive more money than they need to simply stay open. This is great, but also comes with a lot of responsibility. I worked at Day camp through a church this summer and the campers all hated doing music The camp directors knew this, but when the music director came up to them and said she wanted to lead music again, they didn’t turn her down. I was secretly wondering if maybe she was a wealthier member of the church in whom the directors/ pastors did not want to disappoint by turning her down. I also see how at Cornerstone the same guy’s name is on three of their newest and most expensive buildings. That man has recently passed away, but if something were to come up about him being a pedophile I don’t think that they would tear their buildings down. Proverbs 10:22 states “The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and he adds no sorrow with it.” I think that this is key in facing situations such as what the church of Corinth did. God does not care about wealth (Prov. 22:2), but rather the posture of our hearts when we give and remember that God’s blessing on our lives is of more value than any money, especially money that is coming from someone who is blatantly sinning.
The more I read about the church in Corinth, the more shocked I am about how immoral it actually was. The people of Corinth seemed to deal with many of the same issues related to sex and wealth that our society does today. They had issues just like we have today and the church must deal with those issues. Church discipline can be a point of disagreement for many members of the church. I have sadly seen the modern church cover up sin like sexual abuse when it is performed by someone that has a position of authority or influence in the congregation. I believe that there are situations where church discipline is necessary. Situations like slander and disagreements are issues that could be dealt with privately. However, when something occurs that is clearly against the law, legal action should be taken. I have not personally seen the modern church offering more grace and mercy to the wealthy members of the congregation. As far as church discipline goes, I have seen the church completely destroy an individual’s reputation within that congregation. I believe that the church should respond to all things in love and should base their decisions off of that. Often times, churches in this era are caught up in the rules that they have and the first reaction that they have is not in love. I think that love should be the basis of our actions as Christians and as a church. If we are motivated by love and living that out, I do not think that issues like church discipline will be in question.
Blog Post #4
PT 2
This is a very thought provoking question about the history of the church for there have been plenty of evil situations that go down in the church that no one will ever know about; moreover the luxuries and attributes that come with being wealthy can also play a big role in covering up one’s sins. I am certain that this happened in the Corinthian churches; likewise this is something that is still relevant in today’s modern churches. One thing that stood out to me the most from chapter 4 of Longenecker and Stills was “he instructed them to exclude the sinner from among their fellowship” (TTP,122). This in turn will result in two things, says Paul; first it may lead to the sinner’s repentance. I agree with this because once the sinner realizes that they can not do whatever they want and they realize that they are no longer sanctified in Christ they will no longer be able to inherit the kingdom of God (ultimately being handed over to Satan). I think that this will be enough to change a person’s mindset. The second thing that I personally think is the most important that will happen when you exclude a sinner is “ it will stop the contagion of sin from spreading further within Corinthian Christian communities (TTP,122)”. I think this is of the utmost importance because if there is one sinner then everyone will think that it is ok to sin and they will keep sinning making all Christian communities look bad and make them worse.
As for the wealthy, I think that both the Corinthian Church in the first century and the modern day churches in the twenty first century are pretty identical, for money can get you whatever you want in this world just like it could back then. It is imperative to see everyone as equals especially in the Church, for we are all made in the image of God and no matter what when we die we can not take anything with us to heaven so what is the point to boast and act arrogantly just because of the amount of stuff we can buy. 1 Corinthians 4:8 states that “already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you”. What I take from this verse is that if one has a lot of money they need to act unselfishly and help the people that are in need. Moreover, I think that society needs to expect more from the rich for they can literally give more, rather than society giving more to the rich.
When a man is caught in sexual sin with his stepmother, Paul steps in to clear the air and deal with this issue. Paul begins by explaining this type of behavior is something that would even be considered wrong in Roman society – a fact which many tend to skim over. Although Paul is not saying this man’s sin is greater than that of the people of Rome, nor is he saying that it cannot be forgive. Rather, he commands the church to remind this man from the assembly immediately, rather than let this sin potentially seep into the church.
There is an understanding that takes place that sin needs to be swiftly dealt with in the church before it spreads within the church or to other congregations (TTP, 122). There is a certain danger that comes from not dealing with sin in the church and allowing it to become a potential stumbling block to some and a sin and abuse of grace to another. Paul’s rightful conclusion of handing him over to Satan allows this man to either choose to come back to Christ in repentance or abandon Christ altogether (122).
The church today is in many ways no different than the church Paul is speaking to. We deal with an overt amount of unfaithfulness in the church that largely gets swept under the rug. Yet, at the same time, we wonder why the world does not see us as any different than them. Maybe it is because we choose to allow sit to take root in our presence and fail to rid ourselves of the poison that ruins the testimony for Christ.
The sins involved with sex and wealth are still prevalent in our society today. Like in the first century church, sex and wealth are idols that people use to fill a whole in people’s life. Money and sex culture are all around us. From movies, to jobs, to songs on the radio. It is something that is constantly being spoken to us. People say “if I had more money then…” or use sexual things to fil that desire in their heart. However, only Jesus can fill those holes in our heart, not material things.
Regarding the debate of motives with the people, I think it can go both ways. I would not doubt that money and status had something to do with the affair. But I think the main reason comes from freedom from the law. The newly made Christians were trying to figure out how to live, and their surrounding culture still had an impact on their life. To this point, they knew they were saved, so what did it matter if they made choices on their own. They were not restrained to the law anymore. Longenecker adds that pride may be a factor. “Perhaps the attitude of pride that was transpiring emerged as a consequence of a view that, as ‘sanctified’ people who were not restrained by ‘the law,’ they could adopt even the most morally dubious lifestyle without compromising God’s great pleasure towards them” (Longenecker, 122). This mindset of being above the law could create motives to do what they please without seeing real consequences. Paul, however, does refute this and in his letter says something needs to be done with the sexual sin. Paul’s responses to sexual sins are ones we can use to shape our living within a sexualized culture.
The question you asked about how does the idea of sin “in House” work in a contemporary house? and my answer to this question is that no matter the sin the church should be able to help. Sex and wealth are a major struggle in churches in my opinion because you are always hearing about a pastor stepping put on his wife or a decan messing with the first lady or a common one, the pastor stealing money from the church. its inevitable to see these things in church because unless they have a true relationship with Jesus then you wont see the church functioning and flourishing like its supposed too. the debate of reasoning for the Christians is kind of up in the air to me simply because. most people that come from strict homes tend to wild out and act out of character. i think the money and status played a huge part because who doesn’t like status and many people are selfish and love greed. being the center of attention isn’t something that people shy away from often. but I feel like the Christians where trying to find there way. there culture was still attached to them as well, they believed once saved always saved so it didnt matter if they chose to do something on there own for this time. but no man Knows the hour or the day they will leave this earth so they for sure took a risk with this one. Paul does eventually address the sexual sin and i think by using what was written could help people in todays age with there sexual sins.
So I agree with you about the similar situations to the church of Corinth in the modern church. Culture today places a similar value on wealth as well as on a person’s reputation. Although, reputational concerns today are connected to things like virtue signaling and being culturally intelligent. Something you don’t talk about here is the value both cultures put on fame. Though I will concede that the honor/shame culture of Rome is closely related to the Roman view of fame. Anyways, to my point: Another factor that we must take into consideration in the conversation about biases within the church is fame. As a society, we place a special value on celebrities; fashion models, movie stars, social media influencers, we take an extra interest in all of them. The church is no different. Various mega-churches have rich and well known pastors who command massive followings. Fame could be just as important a part of the decision-making process in the modern church as is wealth. Consider a small church that has a pastor with a large family regularly attending. If this church’s pastor were to leave, he would likely bring a large portion of the congregation with him. This fact would affect the church’s treatment of its pastor favorably. Furthermore, in this situation the pastor’s family likely contributes a significant amount of money to the offering. Therefore, if the pastor’s family were to leave, so too would the church’s finances. This is not just an issue the small church must face. A change in pastor in any church is more than enough to cause some churches to split; with some of the congregation following the previous pastor to a new church.
It is kind of crazy that the Corinthian church would put up with so much rampant sexual sin within the church. Paul even says that even the Non-believers and Romans would find the sins that they put up with to be immoral. I think that it is most likely a valid point that the young man in question was probably wealthy and therefore would probably win in a court of law, so no charges would have been brought. Also I agree with saying that it also would have been very dishonorable for the father to sue his son for getting with his wife. I think that it is true that the church still struggles with favoring the rich and powerful over the average person in the church. I think that some examples of this is the Southern Baptist Convention covering up the sex and abuse scandal within their church group. They looked past the sins of their members because of their power and positions within the church. The sins that they committed were gross enough to even disgust those that are non believers within our society. In many ways we are the same as the Corinthian church covering up abuses of the wealthy and powerful within the church.
This post reminds me that there are some individuals out there that think the absolute best consideration out there is whether or not their spouse is wealthy. The passage focuses primarily on young men attempting to keep money or property in the family as long as they possibly can. With this, it raises the question of why men have not been arrested and charged. This mainly leads to the topic of prosecution. However, in order to prosecute, husband would have to sue for a divorce which created some complications in arranged marriages. The crazy thing about the prosecution was that if the husband was not a believer then the church didn’t move along with him towards the charges. This makes sense in a way because if man went to the church to sue for a divorce, but isn’t a believer, what is he really going to the church for? Is he wanting to become a believer and ask for help or is he having no idea in what to do towards the next steps. I also thought it was valuable how you included the idea of dealing with sin in the “house”: church. Being in the “house” should be a place where you feel support, safe, and comfort. Not a place that tries to cover up legal actions that deal with, what was mentioned, sex abuse.
This post really created a question in my head of are we saved from all sin? There seems to be a common occurrence here in today’s world of high level priests within the churches true identities being revealed as dangerous threat rapists and for this I would ask why they do it? Do they claim that God is telling them to do it, I mean we see other criminals within the Bible being saved by God (Moses, Rahab, etc.)? Has Satan taken over these priests and found them as easy prey when they attempted to bring others closer to God. For the common folks down here they practice adultery, have they found true love? Just because you put a ring on the finger and say I do, truly cannot stop one from selfish acts. Do people view Adultery as a “lesser sin”, find God as an excuse and at the end of everyday just say, “ehh it’s okay, God will save me from my sinning”.
The whole money angle adds an extra layer to the situation. The idea that the immoral act might be linked to preserving wealth and prestige in the family especially with the possible divorce complication, really highlights how societal and economic factors go together with personal behavior back then. The concept of freedom in Christ leading to the abuse of grace is intriguing. Your explanation about why the man hasn’t faced legal consequences is interesting. The dynamics of divorce, cultural norms, and the exclusive right of the husband to prosecute provide a picture of the legal complexities of that time. The struggle with sexual sin and favoritism towards the rich in the courts reflects the broader cultural and moral challenges the Corinthian church grappled with. The tension between dealing with sin within the church and not covering up crimes is quite relevant today. I agree with your acknowledgment that certain serious issues, like sex abuse, should involve civil authorities. It’s a reminder that there are lines that should never be blurred, even if the church is dealing with issues “in house.”
Your point about not dragging petty insults to the law courts stuck out to me. It’s a reminder that the church, as a community of believers, should address internal conflicts in a way that reflects grace and reconciliation, rather than resorting to legal battles. Your question about drawing appropriate application between the first and twenty-first centuries is spot on. How do we navigate church discipline today, ensuring fairness and avoiding biases, especially regarding the treatment of the wealthy versus the poor.
In 1 Corinthians 5, it is seen how the Corinthian church struggled. Paul expresses God’s distaste for sexual immorality and calls out how it has so strongly corrupted the church. Paul’s passion is felt strongly; he intensifies his teaching to the Corinthians by expressing to them that they must repel such horrible sin from their lives. As you discuss, Paul directs them to rid these sins from their lives, expelling those that behave this way from their midst. I get the impression that Paul states the need to completely expel those who behave immorality from their lives as the presence of these sins were latched onto the Corinthians; all ways this sin was present in their lives needed to be demolished. This reminds me of what is stated in Proverbs 22:24-25, “Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare” (ESV). Not only did Paul call out the sins of sexual immorality, but he also expressed his disapproval of pettiness, wrathful disagreements, and public, dramatic displays regarding misunderstandings and crimes. Every little issue was taken to court (Long, 92). Paul was worried about how the Corinthians were behaving, especially how they were presenting themselves publicly. They were certainly not setting a good example of Christianity; I see how they could have been living by this “freedom of the Law” mentality and instead living with such worldly virtues. From my perspective, it can be hard to imagine people so drastically far from God’s desires and vision their return to Christ. This makes me consider how challenging Paul’s ministry was; he had great hope and strong trust in God’s leading. Paul had to look at the evil sins that I would prefer to run from, and in God’s name, boldly teach of the opposite of these sins. This requires spiritual strength on Paul’s part. As we continue learning about Corinthians, I am excited to see how the church responds to Paul’s teachings.
In general, sexuality and murder are the biggest sins. These are very big problems, and as Christians, we should never commit them. So there was a sexual problem in Corinth, and I think it is really shameful. A man has his father’s wife, which means they share one woman in the family, and I believe it is such a disgusting thing. A son had sex with his stepmother, and they were alright with that. But Paul is worried about this kind of behavior, and it is a sin. The Corinthian people were not worried about his behavior, and they were alright with that. I believe that this is a sin against God, and believers should not practice it. In some cultures or religions, they can get wives more than one and over four. And I really do not support this idea or behavior. Once a man and woman are married, they only belong to each other, and they should love and live forever. But if one spouse dies or if both divorce, then I think they can get another wife or husband. In 1 Corinthians 7:39, it says, “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.”
Paul worried about the sin of the church and also the sin of the individual man. Paul did not want the Corinthians Christians to be in the sinful world, and he wanted them to get out of that sinful world. Paul also told Corinth Christians not to eat with the people who are sinful. He wanted to get away from them, and they should also judge the sinful. Because they did not judge the sinful people, it does not mean that they were loving or very holy. The purity of the church is so important, and individual salvation is so important too. So we need to judge sinful people so that we can help the church be pure and more people can realize their sins and return to God. I believe that Paul wanted Christians to judge the sinful by helping the church and people to be more righteous and obey God.
Hi, Maddison
I also believe that Paul has a strong hope for Corinth Christians to return to God. The church of Corinth was sinful, and individuals were also sinful. The church was corrupted, and the people were sexually sinful. Believers lives were in a sinful world, and Paul helped them. There’s so much sin in this world, and we should not be part of it. Some believers turn away from God because they are influenced by money, entertainment, and others. There are so many temptations in this world, but we should have faith in Christ, and the Holy Spirit will lead us and guide us.