Question:
My question is in reference to 1 Corinthians 5:5 which says "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This "such a one" is apparently someone who has taken his father's wife? What is Paul saying here? By delivering this person to Satan for the destruction of his flesh his spirit may be saved?
Answer:
Clearly, this passage is, at first blush, counter-intuitive. Our instinct would be to remove an unrepentant sinner from any leadership, but keep this person engaged in church so that there is an ongoing influcence. This makes sense to us within the context of our "tolerant" culture, yet it is clearly not Paul's teaching. Paul, in several of his writings, makes a sharp contrast between God's kingdom and the kingdom of Satan. This is especially apparent in Ephesians 2:1-2:
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
By "delivering one to Satan" Paul is speaking of excommunication, removing a person from the kingdom community of the church. How does this serve to "destroy the flesh" and save the spirit?
Tragically, this concept of destroying the flesh in order to promote spiritual salvation was misapplied by Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and others during the Spanish Inquisition resulting in the barbaric torture of many thousands and the death of 3-5,000 people. What was Paul saying, if not setting up an "inquisition." It seems clear that Paul is referring to the destructive effects of sin, including the toll it takes on the body. Consider Paul's words in Romans 1:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
In essence, Paul is saying, do not allow an unrepentant sinner to "play church" and go on sinning. Exclude such a persona and let him or her reap the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences of their sin. One can see how such "separation" safeguards the body. But how does it result in salvation...a real spiritual benefit for the excommunicated one? Sometimes we have to hit bottom before we can or will make a change. In the recovery community there is talk of "raising the bottom." For example, if the spouse of an alcholic stops covering for them and enabling their bad behaviors, the substance abuser comes to their bottom more quickly. They may lose their job, because you don't help them lie to their boss, but say, "Yeah, Joe's here, but he can't come to work...he is sleeping off a binge!" That's raising the bottom by making a "functional" alcoholic unable to function with the addiction. I believe that is what Paul is talking about...tough love.
There is a challenge that we face that makes it difficult for us to gain the full benefits of this text. During the early first century, there was a unified church under strong apostolic leadership. Discipline worked as God intended. Tragically, the church is now fractured and greatly weakened. Our church maintains high standards and we do practice discipline when needed. However, rarely does this "tough love" result in the positive impact Paul described. The unrepentant sinner just finds another church and maintains the same sinful behaviors in secret. Rarely is there coordination of discipline between churches. Furthermore, in our society, such coordination would be deemed "blackballing" and would probably result in a lawsuit. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is not subject to our culture or our laws and precedents. God has many means by which to raise the bottom on us, even in the current situation. And God's purpose is always redemptive and motivated by love.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Cliff-hanger
Question:
Why are there seemingly contradictory accounts as to how Judas died? In Matthew 27, Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. However in Acts 1, Luke states that Judas fell from a cliff and burst open. Which is true, and what do we do with the other one if all scripture is infallible?
Answer:
In Acts 1:12-26, Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, describes the process by which the vacancy left by Judas was filled. Luke was a medical doctor and we often find that he provides details that other biblical authors do not…Luke was a trained observer used to documenting his findings. The detail that Luke provides has to do with the circumstances of Judas’ death. Matthew gives a very brief account in Mt. 27:5:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Luke provides a much more detailed account, and a seemingly contradictory one:
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
It is interesting that Luke adds the detail that Judas hanged himself over the very field that was bought with the money by which Jesus was betrayed. It is confusing that Luke mentions Judas’ body falling headlong and bursting open, a completely different description than Matthew’s brief one. Bible scholars suggest that this was probably a complex event. Judas hanged himself from a tree, perhaps stretching over a cliff. The bough was weak, the branch broke and Judas died in the manner Luke described. Other scholars have suggested that it might be that Luke is describing a post-mortem, CSI style. Judas hanged himself, but as his body decayed it bloated, burst and he fell headlong. These may seem like fudges. However, we have to take the overall reliability of Scripture into account. It is not hard to believe that there is a way to harmonize these accounts when you consider the trustworthiness of Scripture as a whole.
If you want to listen to this explanation as part of a broader discussion on the selection of Matthias as a replacement to Judas, listen to the January 2nd edition of Soaring Through the Bible.
http://www.southshorechurch.com/uploadimages/MP3/soaring_20100102.mp3
Why are there seemingly contradictory accounts as to how Judas died? In Matthew 27, Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. However in Acts 1, Luke states that Judas fell from a cliff and burst open. Which is true, and what do we do with the other one if all scripture is infallible?
Answer:
In Acts 1:12-26, Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, describes the process by which the vacancy left by Judas was filled. Luke was a medical doctor and we often find that he provides details that other biblical authors do not…Luke was a trained observer used to documenting his findings. The detail that Luke provides has to do with the circumstances of Judas’ death. Matthew gives a very brief account in Mt. 27:5:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Luke provides a much more detailed account, and a seemingly contradictory one:
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
It is interesting that Luke adds the detail that Judas hanged himself over the very field that was bought with the money by which Jesus was betrayed. It is confusing that Luke mentions Judas’ body falling headlong and bursting open, a completely different description than Matthew’s brief one. Bible scholars suggest that this was probably a complex event. Judas hanged himself from a tree, perhaps stretching over a cliff. The bough was weak, the branch broke and Judas died in the manner Luke described. Other scholars have suggested that it might be that Luke is describing a post-mortem, CSI style. Judas hanged himself, but as his body decayed it bloated, burst and he fell headlong. These may seem like fudges. However, we have to take the overall reliability of Scripture into account. It is not hard to believe that there is a way to harmonize these accounts when you consider the trustworthiness of Scripture as a whole.
If you want to listen to this explanation as part of a broader discussion on the selection of Matthias as a replacement to Judas, listen to the January 2nd edition of Soaring Through the Bible.
http://www.southshorechurch.com/uploadimages/MP3/soaring_20100102.mp3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
