In chapter 4 Paul mentions a mood of complacency among those in Corinth who were disregarding his warnings (v. 18): "Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power." The term translated "arrogant" by the NRSV and ESV, and "proud" by the NIV, is what older versions translate literally as "puffed up (with pride, self-confidence)". It denotes a kind of supreme confidence and complacency. This same mood manifests itself in respect to the next abuse that Paul addresses in chapter 5: the man who is carrying on a sexual relationship with his father's wife (i.e., his step-mother).
Although there are many problems with the interpretation of the details of this case, the main lines are clear. The Corinthian believers are misled into thinking that their new state in Christ allows them the freedom to do things that are clearly forbidden in the OT Scripture, in the current Jewish laws, and in the laws of the Roman society in which they live. Since they attribute this freedom to their new state in Christ, they are actually pleased and rejoice in doing these things in order to demonstrate what Christ has done for them. News of this reached Paul through the "household of Chloe", while he was in Ephesus, from where he writes the present letter to them. He expresses his shock and anger at such an interpretation of what it means to be "in Christ", and orders them to repent and grieve over their sin of tolerating this continuing flagrant sin, to expel the offending man from their meetings, and by prayer to "assign him to Satan for the destruction of the 'flesh'", so that he will repent, abandon his sin, and be restored to the community—and so that "his spirit may be saved".
Those are the main lines. As for the difficulties in detail and the differences of opinion among commentators, the first concerns the phrase "deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh". What is the "flesh" (Greek sarx) that is to be destroyed? Some maintain that it means the "fleshly" (i.e., sinful) nature or attitude that leads this man to stubbornly persist in this sexual relationship. This view is reflected in the paraphrased translation in the NIV "the sinful nature may be destroyed". Those who follow this view rightly see that Paul's goal is the saving of this man in the present life and his restoration to fellowship as a repentant person, and therefore they conclude that the Corinthian believers could not be handing him over to Satan to have him killed ("flesh" = body). Others think Satan is supposed to attack his body ("flesh") with suffering, severe illness, and with the ultimate result ("destruction") of his death. This seems to be Satan's usual work, as attested in the OT Scriptures (see among others the case of Job) and in the other parts of the NT. Both sides stress valid points. How are we to resolve this matter?
It seems to me that the answer lies in the understanding of the two purpose clauses "for the destruction of the flesh" and "so that his spirit may be saved". Since it would be impossible for Satan to act against his own interests by removing the "sinful nature" from the offending man, so that his spirit might be saved, I understand the assigning of the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh to mean asking God to remove his protection from the man's body, as he did with Job, so that Satan may bring painful, even grave, illness upon him. "Flesh" here, then, does mean the man's physical body. The "so that" clause, however, does not refer to a consequence of the destruction of the flesh (body), but to a desired consequence of the assigning him to Satan. The intention all along—on Paul's part as well as on the part of the congregation—is to bring the man to repentance and restore him, which—judging from 2 Corinthians—seems to have in fact been the happy outcome. But this outcome was not the result of Satan destroying the sinful nature in the man—which is preposterous. See our Lord's own ridiculing of such a possibility in his words to the Pharisees who accused him of casting out demons by the power of the Prince of Demons.
A second, less important, problem of interpretation is the question of the exact nature of the man's deed. Could the woman he was having sexual relations with have been widowed or divorced from his father? Or are we to envision the offender having an extended sexual relationship with a woman who was still the wife of the man's living father? Most interpreters assume the latter. Since obviously the father has male offspring (the offending son!), this cannot be a case of levirate marriage (Deut. 25), which allows the widow to be taken in marriage by a very close male blood relative—a situation which under other circumstances would clearly constitute incest. And if this is not levirate marriage, then even if the woman was his father's divorced wife, it constitutes incest according to OT law.
But what is of particular interest in Paul's rebuke is that he considers more than just the fact that it is a violation of God's (OT) law, but that it is something not even tolerated by the pagans (so correctly in ESV and TNIV). The translation "not found even among the pagans" (so NRSV, and in slightly different wording in the NIV) is incorrect. The italicized verb is actually missing from the Greek text and is supplied by translators in order to complete the thought. But actual cases in Roman law of the time show that these things actually did happen, but were judged and punished in the courts. So the point is not that they never occurred, but that the pagan Romans did not allow them to go unpunished. The Corinthians were flouting the laws of the society in which they lived. And Paul makes this an additional (perhaps even equal) consideration in his rebuke.
6-8 Having given clear instructions as to what they are to do with regard to this man, Paul turns to their attitude. He is exceedingly unhappy with their boasting about special moral and ethical freedoms. The freedom of the Christian from the law of Moses that he elsewhere describes does not mean freedom from its moral and ethical aspects, only from the necessity to perform animal sacrifices to secure forgiveness for sins, and from the necessity to circumcise Gentiles. Christians are not free from God's moral demands. Nor can they without very good reason go against reasonable moral standards of the society in which they live. Paul uses a metaphor from the Passover festival, which many of the members observed as good Jews. It was necessary before celebrating that festival to purge the house of any trace of leaven, any food that was the product of fermentation. Only a tiny bit of leavened dough added to a large lump of unleavened dough quickly spreads its fermentation throughout the lump. The lesson is clear: the believers in Corinth cannot let publicly known sins in their midst go uncorrected. If they do, the practices will spread and permeate the whole. When this happens, they cannot benefit from their true Passover sacrifice, Jesus the Messiah who died for their sins.
9-13 Finally, Paul wants them to understand that expelling an unrepentant believer from their membership and their meetings was all that he had meant by an earlier instruction to them "not to associate with immoral persons" (sexual offenders, greedy persons, robbers, idolaters, etc.). He did not intend them to shun unbelieving neighbors! To do the latter, they would have to leave the world! Rather, Paul wants them to keep a tight rein on the moral rectitude of their own members and to discipline those who refused to be moral. When he tells them not to even "eat" with such a rebellious member of the congregation, he undoubtedly refers to the believers' communal meals such as the agape ("love feast") and the associated Lord's Supper (Eucharist). Christian congregations today usually issue a request to persons attending the Eucharist who are not yet believers that they refrain from partaking until such time as they can do so as believers. But in cases where a member known to be flagrantly disobeying the moral demands of Scripture sits in the congregation at Eucharist, the situation is ticklish. No one wants to have a scene during the Eucharist. If the elements are administered at a communion rail by the pastor, he can quietly refuse to administer the sacrament to the person he knows to be rebelling. But in cases where deacons or elders pass the elements down the pews, this cannot be done. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the pastor and elders to go and talk with the person, and urge them not to continue to combine a sinful practice with participation in the Eucharist, since God has promised to judge such persons (1 Cor. 11:27-31). Paul will have more to say on this issue in chapter 11.
No comments:
Post a Comment