The Danger of Going Beyond

Paul writes (4:6), “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written ...” In the NRSV this reads, “... so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, ‘Nothing beyond what is written.’”

John writes of this same danger in his Second Epistle, v.9: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” The NRSV: “Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”

The AV/KJV is most unhelpful in its rendering of Paul’s meaning in 4:6: it reads, “... that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” - which misses the point.

The danger that Paul and John are pointing out, in its most basic form, is a dissatisfaction with the silences of Scripture, and an attempt to “add in” the information which Scripture does not give.

In many cases this is completely harmless: as when a Sunday School teacher embroiders one of the stories of Scripture to make it more vivid for her Sunday School class. Harmless, that is, provided the details she adds are validly taken from what we know of the situations in Bible times, and are not misleading.

And there are many “traditional” details which have been added to biblical narratives to the point where most people would believe that they are part of the original account. One example would be that in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve ate an apple (Genesis does not name a fruit, calling it “the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [Genesis 2:17; 3:3].). Another would be that the wise men who visited Jesus as a babe were three in number (Matthew 2:1 simply calls them “wise men from the east”, their number unspecified).

In the early church many people felt that the information about the life of Jesus given in the Gospels was a little too sketchy, and so various accounts were written which “filled in the details”: the different infancy stories. In similar fashion numerous “Acts” were written to tell of other experiences of Paul and the rest of the apostles. Some were merely speculative fictions; some contained heterodox teaching.

Somewhere here we should draw the line as to what is acceptable. Paul says, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Certainly we should not be more strict or less strict than Scripture in its moral code. This would certainly be encom­passed within the prohibition of Revelation 22:18-19 about adding to or taking away from the words of this book. And however one interprets precisely the binding and loosing of Matthew 18:18, it can be agreed that this verse forbids both the “tightening” and “loosening” of what the laws of God allow or proscribe.

Yet this is precisely what some in the church of God have done down the ages. This is one of the things for which Jesus castigated the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4). And this is still what some Christian leaders and teachers do today: adding requirements for the Christian life or godly behavior for which the Bible gives no warrant. And forbidding things where no such prohibition is found in Scripture, neither explicit or implicit: in fact, there are quite a few sins which the church has invented - they are nowhere found in the Bible. Some such issues will arise in the course of our consideration of this Epistle, and I will draw attention to them at that time.

Then on the other hand there are matters explicitly disallowed in Scripture which some churches today will permit; or else commanded in Scripture which some churches today will not require of Christians. In some such instances, the apologists for differing from Scripture will say, “It is because the biblical teaching on this matter was culturally conditioned, and culture has changed.” Now, there can be a considerable extent to which this is so: but even when a biblical command or prohibition is expressed in a cultural context there is normally an eternal truth in it which we need to understand and apply even in our different culture. But often it is simply a situation where biblical standards differ from the patterns of behavior of our present world, and the temptation is always to conform those biblical standards to what is to be found in the world around us.

Instances of all these situations are to be found in this Epistle, and will call forth careful consideration.

But we have this word of warning from John: “Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” And this instruction here from Paul: “learn through us the meaning of the saying, ‘Nothing beyond what is written.’”

For down that path lies danger.

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

Ward

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

Fracturing and Fragmenting the Church of God

In 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 Paul speaks, in some considerable concern, about how the Corinthians are plagued with divisions and quarrels. They are dividing themselves into factions clustered around the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and Christ himself.

Commentators are agreed that the factions were neither started by nor supported by the men whose names they bore. We have no real knowledge now of the basis for these factions, nor do we know what they were differing about. Various conjectures have been made. For example, that the Jewish Christians laid claim to Cephas and probably Apollos, and the Gentiles to Paul. Or those who were (or wanted to be) married pointed to the marital status of Peter, while those who were unmarried elevated Paul and Christ himself as their exemplars (the married status of Apollos is not mentioned in 9:5-6, and remains unknown). Or the differences between the factions may have centered in differences of methods, of preaching, of behavior, or the like, which the Corinthians detected (or thought they detected) between the persons around whose names they gathered themselves. The fact is, we do not know.

But for the Corinthians - and for Paul - the matter was a serious one. Paul has many important issues to raise, requiring careful consideration and extensive change. But before discussing any of these, Paul feels obliged to tackle this issue of their disunity. It is dividing brother from brother in a destructive way (3:17). It must be faced. It must be dealt with. It must be stopped.

Paul’s approach is, first, to reiterate the nature of the ­gospel, which is the major factor which unites them all; then, to emphasize that he and Apollos (and the others) are equally inspired and led by the Spirit, and are colaborers, even if their ministries may perhaps differ in some ways (“I planted, Apollos watered”). Christ is the foundation (3:11): all of us (Paul indicates) are building upon that foundation - and we must be very careful just how we build (3:12-15).

As we shall see in subsequent chapters, there are various kinds of differences to be seen at Corinth. In addition to those indicated in this first chapter (whatever in fact they were), there are the different builders of chapter 3; the differences between the “libertarians” and the “ascetics” in the church in regard to their attitude to sex (chapters 6 and 7); between the “knowers” and the “weak” in relation to food offered to idols (chapters 8 to 10); between the “haves” and the “have nots” at the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11); between those more obviously gifted by the Spirit and those less so (chapters 12 to 14); and between those with various views concerning the resurrection (chapter 15). Where there were moral or doctrinal errors involved, Paul pointed these out clearly and called for change. But, these apart, Paul did not ask them to become what they were not. His basic approach, which we can see exemplified in 7:20, was, “Stay as you are.”

What he did ask was that there be no disunity, no quarreling, “but that you all be united in the same mind and the same judgement” (1:10).

Some churches of today, in seeking to put into practice the spirit of this teaching of Paul, have adopted as their policy not to make any changes to the status quo unless the whole church (or at least the whole body of the leadership of that church) are unanimously agreed. So till then they will continue to pray and to “wait upon God”.

But there are so many issues which Scripture leaves open for our own determination (e.g. various aspects of how we conduct our worship of God), and so many ways in which we will differ (perfectly legitimately) from one another, that when this approach is followed rigorously it often happens that that church moves very slowly in any matter, or not at all. In some ways, some matters, this may be to the good; but overall it inhibits progress in adapting the eternal gospel to the circumstances of a changing world. Often this means that those people who are most vocal or have the strongest personalities (or who simply get in first to express their views) carry the day, because the less vocal, or the less pushy, or the more reticent, do not want to jeopardize the “unity of the Spirit” by expressing a different opinion.

Some have had, historically, a different approach: when (say) 75% want this and 25% want that, and they cannot agree or accommodate each other’s differences, they split - often acrimoniously. Then in their separate enclaves they can each have their “unanimity” over the issue. And thus perhaps another denomination is created. Then because of our investment (both emotional and financial) in the whole situation, the divisions and the divergences become so totally entrenched that they continue long after the basic causes have been forgotten and the original antagonists have passed from the scene.

Sometimes God blesses them all in this situation, and good may result. It can happen. The most famous example in Scripture is the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41), which resulted in two missionary parties going out, each under an experienced leader. But more often, in modern times, this simply results in bad feelings, a more divided Christian witness to the world, the waste of precious resources through the doubling-up on church infrastructure, and the fact that the one group can no longer benefit from the gifts of ministry which the Lord has given to members of the other group.

Oftentimes the fact that a minority dissents over an issue will mean that the whole matter receives more careful consideration. Issues should still be decided by majority, but it will happen with an awareness of how often in history significant progress was made in any given field of endeavor only because a minority - or a single voice - dissented from the accepted outlook or the consensus of the majority or the status quo. It may indeed be that he or she is a voice in the wilderness, but they could be voicing prophetic insights from the Lord. Or not.

Paul’s earnest plea in this section is not a call for uniformity. Or unanimity. We need to distinguish clearly between the danger of the factions forming in our church which was of so much concern to Paul, on the one hand, and on the other, the expressing in valuable robust discussion of differing points of view. Different people espousing differing views and opinions is no justification for fracturing the unity of the body of Christ in a given church.

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

Ward

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

The Inspiration of Scripture - And Our Response

In some churches, at the end of the reading of the passage of Scripture in the worship service, the Bible reader concludes with “This is the Word of the Lord”, and the congregation responds, “Thanks be to God!” I like that. I like that very much. It is a recognition by both reader and congregation of what has just been happening: we have been listening to the Word of God read to us.

The foundation of our faith in God is the teaching of Scripture. Thus such a recognition by the worshipers in the service, that we have been listening to the Word of God, is beneficial for us all.

There are so many ways in which our full confidence in the Scriptures can be called into question these days - sometimes overtly, and sometimes much more subtly. Have you noticed the spate of “red letter Bibles” churned out by respectable publishers? Bibles with the words of Jesus printed in red type: an apparently innocuous device that highlights and immediately enables us to identify what Jesus himself has said.

But to what purpose? we might ask. For convenience, and ease of use, we are told. But how would this help us? we ask. So that we can distinguish what Jesus said from bare narrative and from what other people said. And why might we want to do that? we may enquire. And at this point we can generally go around in circles.

But red letter Bibles are indeed produced so that we can readily distinguish the words of Jesus. Which leads us to register in our minds a difference between the two: the words in red and the words in black, and then (the next step, so easily taken) to see a distinction between the two. “These are the very words of Jesus (and these are just the words of somebody else)” - and that concept of “just” slips in, and next we will be likely to find ourselves regarding the “words of Jesus” differently from the rest of Scripture (for are they not highlighted in red?). The stage beyond that is imperceptively easy to reach: the words of Jesus are more important, more inspired, more authoritative, than the rest.

We are thus insidiously being brought to the acceptance of the idea of two levels of inspiration in the Scripture: the words of Jesus, and everything else.

So, Christians can end up thinking, “This is the teaching of Jesus”, and therefore accepting it as authoritative; and “This is just the opinion of Paul (or some other writer)”, and therefore it is able, in varying degrees, to be treated just the same as anybody else’s opinion, and disregarded or disagreed with if we so choose.

Of course people can come to this kind of attitude without needing the assistance of a red letter Bible, but it certainly helps.

And making this distinction between the words of Jesus and the rest can result in undercutting the authority of the rest of Scripture by featuring the words of Jesus in red as “special” and being somehow different from all the rest. You preach on 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God ...” but your listeners have already qualified and interpreted this as “Yes, but the teaching of Jesus is different from the rest, isn’t it?” because their red letter Bible is saying that to them loud and clear every time they open it.

If we recognize that the apostles and prophets - and all the writers of Scripture - spoke and wrote as the Holy Spirit guided and inspired them (Ephesians 3:4-5; 2 Peter 1:20-21), we need to act so as to underline and reinforce that truth. Not undercut it and call it into question with the use of a printed Bible that shrieks on every page “There’s the red bit and the black bit, and they’re different, as you can plainly see.”

Paul clearly says (2:13) that he and his fellow servants of God impart the truths of God in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit. The things that Paul writes are the commandment of the Lord (14:37). Which is true also of every one of the other authors whom the Spirit used in the writing of the Scriptures. Let us accept the full authority with which they write and not relegate their writings, de facto, to being some “type 2” subordinate kind of Scripture.

Recognizing these things does not in any way call into question the individuality of each biblical author. It does not imply some wrong-headed mechanistic “typewriter” idea of the Spirit’s inspiration of Scripture, as if the “authors” were no more than “transcribers” of words dictated to them from heaven. Not at all: the Holy Spirit used the individual writers just as they were. That is why we can see difference between books written by different authors - differences of vocabulary and phraseology, of structure and ways of writing, of interests and emphases. And it can indeed be profitable to look at all these things and examine (for instance) “Pauline theology” compared with “Johannine theology”, and so on.

But after we have fully recognized these things, we are to recognize also that “men spoke from God” in what they wrote, as “they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), and that what they produced was exactly what God wanted said and conveyed his truth with complete accuracy.

Thus we can endorse what Cyril of Alexandria said early in the Christian era (Kovacs xvi), “The entire Scripture is one book and was spoken by the one Holy Spirit”.

Ultimately, this is what Paul is telling us in 1 Corinthians 2:13.

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

Ward

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

Genuine Christians And the Offender of 1 Corinthians 5

In the world of today it is not always possible to know who in the assembly of the church are genuine Christians and which ones are those who only have the appearance of being Christians. At times there is a tendency to think that these matters were much more clearcut, black and white, in apostolic days. This however is not really so, as we can see from 1 Corinthians 5. In this chapter Paul writes about an offender who is clearly a member of the congregation of the church at Corinth: Paul says (5:1) that “there is sexual immorality among you”, and in any case Paul disclaims any responsibility for passing judgement on outsiders (5:12a), whereas he has passed judgement on the man who has done this thing (5:3-4). The man is to be delivered to Satan with the intended purpose of his ultimate salvation (5:5) - but is he actually a Christian at this time, or not?

It may be that he is a Christian who has fallen back into sin (perhaps because of the apparent attitude of toleration towards sin, especially sexual sin, which seems to have been prevailing in the church at Corinth). Every minister of the gospel today is aware of the reality of this possibility; he has had backsliding Christians in his congregations; he has seen keen servants of Christ stumble and fall into sin and he knows the desperate relevance of the warning which Paul gives later in this letter (10:12), “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall.” Even the minister of the gospel himself is not immune from the possibility of such a fall.

If the offender is a backsliding Christian, the intention is that putting him out of the fellowship of the church and delivering him afresh to Satan - whose kingdom he left at his conversion - will compel him to face the seriousness of his sin. This he will do, of course, only if he first sees that the church views it seriously. Without the church’s fellowship, acceptance and support, without the ministry of the church and ­participation in the Lord’s Supper (implicit in the prohibition of 5:11, “With such a man do not even eat”), he is made to recall his old life and compelled to see that he cannot have a foot in both worlds, but must choose, for Christ or against him. In a situation which has some parallels with that of the Corinthian offender, King David was compelled to face his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-14), and was brought to repentance and restoration (Psalm 51).

Alternatively, the offender, though a member of the Corinthian congregation, may not have become a Christian at all, and may be seeking to continue living in accordance with his old standards of morality while attracted to the Christian message and Christian standards in other ways. But if he were merely an interested listener to the gospel it is hard to see that Paul would have acted in this way; for the man (even if unconverted) has obviously become accepted in the church at Corinth as “one of them”. Again, this possibility will surprise no one. The Parable of the Sower, the key to all the parables (Mark 4:13), warns that there will be those who give every indication of a genuine response to the Word which is sown but who fall away and by their falling away make plain and clear what otherwise was not: that they are not those in whose hearts the Word of God has been fruitful (Mark 4:14-20; Matthew 13:18-23; see also 1 John 2:19).

Jesus explained further in his next parable (Matthew 13:24-43) that in the field there will be weeds growing amongst the wheat. The Corinthian offender may be not yet a Christian but may think himself to be a Christian, and consider that his behavior is within the tolerable limits of Christian liberty. When the church takes a firm stand on the question of sin in their midst, this can bring the man to recognize his true situation, and thus to realize that he cannot hesitate between the two alternatives but must commit himself fully to Jesus Christ who said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23). Thus the church’s severe response to the man’s sin can lead to his ultimate salvation (5:5).

Some students of this passage accept a third interpretation of the situation: that the offender was indeed a Christian, but that he has, by his act of turning his back upon the moral standards of God, rejected Christ and lost his salvation. If the church now will act to reject the man from their fellowship, this will force the man to realize that he is no longer a member of Christ’s church, for his behavior is incompatible with his profession of faith. Being thus brought to see that he is once again an outsider and a lost sinner, he may come back to faith and receive salvation again.

It is possible that Paul and the Corinthians are more fully aware of the man’s spiritual standing than we are able to be, for we lack the fuller knowledge of the situation that they would have had. But it is also quite possible that Paul himself can­­not be sure at this stage whether the man is a Christian or not. Certainly when he writes in more general terms of the church’s attitude towards those who are open and continuous sin­­ners, he speaks concerning “anyone who bears the name of broth­­er” (5:11) - referring to the situation where a person “calls himself a brother” (NIV) or has been accepted as a Chris­­tian by the church, but has then by his unchristian moral be­havior called in question the genuineness of his Christian standing.

John’s First Epistle gives a very carefully balanced view of the situation: to commit an act of sin does not prove that a person is not a Christian, nor cause him to cease to be a Christian, for “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ... If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10). Yet, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. ... Whoever says, ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments [that is to say, who continues in disobedience to his commandments] is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:1-4).

A similar balance is found in what Paul writes. In what follows (6:9-10) he sets before the Corinthians various forms of unrighteousness, from which (6:11) they have been forgiven, cleansed, and delivered. But these comments also make it starkly plain that those who persist in such behavior show by that fact that they are not of the people of God, and, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

What Then Should We Do?

The application of the teaching of this chapter to the ­circumstances of today’s church will present many problems in practice. What are we to do in the church as a result of what Paul has said here? What is its relevance for today? This requires some thoughtful reflection. Ask yourself: if our church today finds itself confronted by a parallel situation, what are we to make of what Paul says, and, in particular, how is our church to respond to his teaching?

At its worst extreme of implementation, we can find the dissension in a church exacerbated, with two warring factions each “excommunicating” the other, or the more powerful group or party in a church crushing a minority with whom they differ. At the end of the first century, dissension still divided the Corinthian church - though at that time it was a dispute between the elders and the young radicals in the church - and this was the occasion for the writing of 1 Clement, the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Disputes of modern times can often be due to “personality clashes”, or are frequently concerned with doctrinal issues or questions of worship, liturgy, sacraments, church order or practice, or the like. Now, without denying the seriousness of such issues, one should nonetheless recognize that they differ from the question of publicly-known immorality and the church’s attitude towards the scandalous behavior of one of its members.

Sometimes modern attempts to implement the Pauline teaching have had unscheduled consequences, where the “excommunicated” have taken the church authorities to court for alleged defamation of character. Moreover there have been occasions when a person has been put out of fellowship for relatively minor infringements of the behavioral code of a particular group when those offences were simply not to be compared with the sin being practised by the Corinthian offender.

And it all too frequently happens that a church will fail to take account of the repentance of an offender but will continue to punish him for a sin for which he has sought and received the forgiveness of God.

At the opposite extreme, one can find Christian groups who, mindful of the real dangers of intolerance and excess of zeal in enforcing a particular code of morals, adopt a policy of total tolerance which does not enforce upon its membership any church discipline for moral lapses. Thus there comes to be no difference between the moral standards and practices of its members and those of the non-Christians outside the church, so that the concept of the church standing for and witnessing to a specific standard of moral life is completely nullified. This in fact was the exact situation at Corinth which called forth Paul’s concern.

So then: what are we to do in the church as a result of what Paul has said here? Let us consider these issues.

First, let us recognize that Paul expected action to be taken. It is not possible to read this chapter and conclude that Paul was not serious about the matter. The Christian understanding of the Bible as authoritative and normative for church teaching and practice compels us to recognize that in similarly appro­priate circumstances similarly appropriate action is required in the church today.

Second, we must note the seriousness of the offence. It was something that was so reprehensible that even the pagans condemned it; it had been continuing for some time and was still continuing; and it had become public knowledge in the church and (apparently) in the community as well. The seriousness of the sin must be commensurate with the seriousness of the action taken against it, as we seek to implement Paul’s teaching in today’s church. (Notice the kind of sins listed by Paul in 5:11.) We do not take drastic and extreme action against a culprit guilty of a minor misdemeanor. But nor do we allow serious, continuous, public sin on the part of a church member to go unchecked, unrebuked, and unpunished.

Third, just as this chapter presumes and implies prior attempts to bring the offender to a change of heart and mind, so must we first challenge such a person about his sin and give him time and opportunity for repentance - it is the gracious mercy of God to allow this first (see Revelation 2:21; 2 Peter 3:9). The clear evidence, found throughout Paul’s epistles, of his close familiarity with the teaching of Jesus makes it highly probable that he knew and had already followed Jesus’s teaching in such a situation (Matthew 18:15-17) in his previous comments about this man’s offence, which was, it seems, discussed in Paul’s earlier letter to the Corinthians (5:9-11). What necessitates drastic action now at Corinth is that the offender is unrepentant and the offence is still continuing. But if we were to act too precipitately in thrusting an offender out of our fellowship we may do more to prevent than to procure the favorable outcome that we seek.

Fourth, we are to act as a church. No one individual or group of individuals in a church is here being authorized to act on their own authority. Quite the contrary. We may consider that Paul the apostle had the authority to act himself against this offender. But it was necessary, and important, that the whole church be involved and be seen to be involved. They are to meet in formal assembly to consider the matter and decide what is to be done (5:4). There is absolutely no question about what Paul is telling them is to be done in this situation (see 5:3-5 and 11-13), but the point is that they are to do it (5:5a). The act of putting a person out of a Christian fellowship is an act of that whole fellowship formally assembled to discuss and decide the issue.

Fifth, we are to be completely clear in our minds about our objective. It is, through this discipline by the church, to censure the offender for his behavior with the purpose of bringing about his repentance and restitution, in hope of his restoration, and with a view to his ultimate salvation (5:5)

Sixth, we are to sever our association with a person who calls himself a brother (or who has been accepted as a brother) and who persists in flagrant sin - not only referring to immorality, but other serious sin (5:11). The circumstances of our doing this, through the act of a formal meeting, must be so clearly laid before the person in question that he understands what is being done, that it is being done by the whole church, that it is because he has failed to respond to the efforts of the church to help him to amend his ways, and that it is the last step open to us in our concern for his spiritual wellbeing and for our witness to the Lord in the world. It is to be made clear also that he will be welcomed back into fellowship when he has repented and made such restitution as the circumstances require. After making this clear, we withdraw our fellowship from the offender.

This is the point where the practical problem is most acute in our present denominational pattern, and with our modern mobility. The person concerned, if he wishes to retain his church links, simply goes to another local church or another denomination, once he is put out of our fellowship. What was meant to be an act of severe church discipline - the most drastic act of which the church is capable - becomes for the offender simply the occasion for a change of membership or denominational affiliation.

And when he links up somewhere else, he is not highly likely to mention the circumstances of his departure from his previous congregation or that he is under discipline from them. He has moreover a fresh opportunity of keeping concealed whatever the sin is that he is committing and which had come to light in his last church.

The apparent hopelessness in these circumstances of effecting any kind of actual church discipline has caused some to abandon the attempt as being about as successful as carrying water in a sieve.

Two comments should be made about this.

First, the fact that to a considerable extent the offender can “slip out from under” the discipline when the church acts as it should is no valid reason for the church failing to act as it should.

Second, the church which imposes this discipline can, through its leaders, seek to retain a contact (perhaps by an occasional visit) with the offender so that he is reminded that the church still loves him and cares for him though it cannot countenance what he is doing - and that in this attitude the church is reflecting the attitude of God.

If his former church learns that the offender has linked up somewhere else, should they inform his new church about their own action against the offender?

There is no easy answer to this question, and it may well depend upon the details of the specific situation. But they most certainly (through their leaders) can and should seek to make the offender aware that if he has not repented and abandoned his sin then his transfer to another local church solves nothing in regard to the serious fracture of his relationship with God; and if he has, then he is welcome to return to his former ­congregation. But in the latter case, the person concerned may feel a preference for making a new start elsewhere, and his ­former church may decide to consider this a reasonable ­outcome.

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

Ward

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

Some Implications Concerning Flesh and Body

A major issue involving different views of interpretation centers upon Paul’s intended meaning in 1 Corinthians 6:16, concerning the explanation which Paul is giving for why sexual union with a prostitute is completely wrong for a Christian. The common interpretation of Paul’s meaning is as follows:

“He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her, because this is the consequence of the teaching of Scripture when it states ‘The two shall become one flesh’. That is to say, becoming ‘one flesh’ is brought about by having sexual intercourse with a person, even if that person is a prostitute, because he who joins himself to a person in sexual intercourse becomes one body with her, and ‘one body’ and ‘one flesh’ have the same meaning.”

E.g. Conzelmann (111) says explicitly, “Paul presumes that σάρξ, ‘flesh,’ is the equivalent of σῶμα, ‘body’.” So completely was this identification of “one body” and “one flesh” accepted by the translators of the original (1946) RSV that the Greek word “flesh” was left untranslated, leaving the reader to identify the “two shall become one” with the “one body” of the sentence which precedes it. The revised RSV of 1971 inserted “flesh” to translate σαρξ (sarx), so that at least the reader is now aware that two different words are used in the Greek.

The deficiency of this interpretation is that it denudes Paul’s argument of any specific point. Paul is made to be saying: "Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that the Scripture says that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one flesh with her?"

Why this should be wrong is not explained - that is left for the Corinthians to work out for themselves. Paul is shown as building his argument up to a point - and then he fails to make the point!

The following verse (6:17) draws the contrast between bodily union with a prostitute and spiritual union with Christ without explaining why the former is wrong. But the fact that I am spiritually united with Christ does not make all sexual union wrong for me. If Paul’s point is that sexual union is wrong if my partner is a prostitute, then verse 17 is not ­help­ing to make that point.

We know that sexual union with a prostitute is wrong because of Paul’s question about this that he answers with an emphatic “Never!” But we are left without any meaning in his purported explanation of why it is wrong. This consequence should make us somewhat suspicious of an interpretation that brings us to such a situation.

Our suspicion of this interpretation must be considerably increased when its wider implications are considered.

If sexual union with a prostitute makes a customer “one flesh” with her, then it will do the same for all her customers - so either each customer is in a one-flesh relationship with the prostitute until the advent of the next customer (a very short-term relationship!); or else the “one flesh” term refers only to the actual act of intercourse and not to a relationship at all (so that Paul is here quoting Genesis 2:24 with a meaning quite opposed to that of all other biblical occurrences of this passage); or else a prostitute can be, and remain, simultaneously one-flesh with all her customers, who themselves are also one-flesh with any other prostitutes they consort with - a conclusion which evacuates the term of any meaning at all!

However, the fact is that Scripture uses “one flesh” to refer to the marriage relationship (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7; Ephesians 5:31). To equate becoming “one flesh” just with physical union itself (“one body”) is to make the estab­lishment of a marriage to be solely a matter of physical union.

This could not be restricted to liaisons with prostitutes. On this view, any two people who had sexual intercourse together would have to be held to be, in God’s sight, married to each other. The theological and pastoral implications of this are far-reaching! Some Christians, being consistent, have reached this conclusion, and thus they give pastoral counselling based on this interpretation of the passage, telling two people who have had sexual intercourse to become formally married as they have already become married in God’s sight!

Moreover, if physical union in itself (“one body”) is equated with “one flesh” (6:16) and this is then contrasted with being “united to the Lord” and becoming “one spirit with him” (6:17), then it is hard to resist the conclusion - from this interpretation - that all sexual activity (even the “one flesh” of marriage) is covered by Paul’s contrast with a spiritual relationship with Christ, and thus is wrong in itself and apparently condemned by the generalization of 6:18, “Flee from immorality”. Now this conclusion is impossible to sustain from the wider context: the instruction “Therefore honor God with your body” (6:20) is followed within a couple of verses by injunctions to both husband and wife to give sexual fulfillment to their marriage partner, and the assertion that each has the control, for sexual purposes, of the partner’s body (7:3-4).

If then respect for the whole of what Paul says in this total passage will prevent us from regarding “flee from sexual immorality” and being one spirit with the Lord as a blanket condemnation of all sexual relations, we are thereby compelled to backtrack and think afresh whether we are correct in accepting the identification of “one body” and “one flesh” (6:16) as synonymous.

Consider some of the pastoral and theological implications, in a few real-life pastoral situations, of the interpretation of 6:16 that to be “one body” with a prostitute means the same as to be “one flesh” with her - that is, that an act of sexual intercourse is what makes two people “one flesh”:

1. George goes away to a Convention with his workmates, and while they are in a distant city together he gives way to peer pressure when the others decide to hire a few call girls for the evening. So he’s become “one flesh” with one of these girls, has he? What exactly does that mean? He doesn’t even know the girl’s name. He will never see her again. What exactly does it mean now to say that George is “one flesh” with her, in terms of Bible teaching? And what is the nature now of his relationship with his wife, theologically speaking? - he was “one flesh” with her before the Convention: is he still? You are his pastor, and - deeply ashamed - George comes to you for clarification. Theologically, what do you tell him? Oh, yes, and of course the call girl had several other customers that night - are they all “one flesh” with her also? Simultaneously? How many people can you be “one flesh” with simultaneously - is there a limit?

2. Muriel and her husband split up many years ago, but she never bothered with a divorce as she did not contemplate marrying again. Recently she joined a gym club, and felt attracted to one of the instructors. One thing led to another, and one day they had sex together. It was just a passing infatuation - she doesn’t love him, and they would not be a good match to get married. But where does she stand with him now, theologically speaking? If she is “one flesh” with him now, does that mean she is actually married to him in God’s sight? So is she to put through her divorce now, so that she can legally marry this gym instructor? You are her pastor, and in great distress, remembering your sermon last year on “one flesh” in 1 Cor­inthians 6:16, Muriel comes to you now for you to explain her situation to her theologically. What will you tell her?

3. One wet Saturday afternoon two teenage members of your youth group are fooling around, not really understanding what they are doing. And while playing around together, they end up having intercourse. Now, if having intercourse means becoming “one flesh”, they must now be married in God’s sight, right? They certainly didn’t intend to get married that wet afternoon. Judy’s mother finds her in tears, and brings her to you. What can you tell them both about the concepts of intention in relation to getting married, and giving consent to a marriage, and all the other things that you would normally say to a couple contemplating marriage? Judy and Jim don’t want to marry - they just want to complete their schooling. Do you tell them they are now actually married in God’s sight? And what must they do about this?

Or, seeing all these people this week, will you decide that being “one flesh” is not the same thing as being married before God? What will you do then with all the Bible verses that say that being “one flesh” is in fact the inner meaning of being married?

Or will you perhaps rethink now what started it all - the interpretation of 6:16 that says becoming “one body” with a prostitute means in fact becoming “one flesh” with her, with all that the Bible means by this intimate term?

The fact is, this approach is an extremely unsatisfactory interpretation, both on internal grounds, and on the basis of the other teaching of Paul (e.g., Ephesians 5:22-33) and the teaching of the rest of the New Testament. For it is difficult to deny that such an interpretation sets this verse in conflict with the meaning of Genesis 2:24 (“one flesh”) both in its original context and in each other place where it is quoted in Scripture.

There are several commentators who have noted the unsatis­factory nature of this usual approach. For example, in the Anchor Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians, the authors William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, write:

“Since human bodies are parts of the body of Christ, Paul declares it unthinkable that they participate in prostitution. Based on his understanding of creation he believed that sex union makes the two participants one body. [Whereas] to become one flesh is the proper destiny of those who incorporate their sex desires into a total relation of love and loyalty, so that they can become one joint personality and in their relationship express faith in God and love for the other. This cannot be done in the isolated, commercial action of prostitution. The mysterious unity of the flesh where there is no concern, loyalty, or love is sharply rejected by Paul.”

That is, these authors affirm that Paul sharply rejects the idea that “the mysterious unity of the flesh” can exist “in the isolated, commercial action of prostitution”, “where there is no concern, loyalty, or love”.

The commentator who seeks to face the problem squarely, and to wrestle with it realistically, is Calvin. In his commen­tary he begins his discussion of what Paul says in v.16 thus:

“He makes it plainer how seriously Christ is harmed by the man who has intercourse with a harlot. For one body is formed, and so tears a member away from the body of Christ. Paul adds a quotation from Genesis 2:24 but it is not clear what connection he means it to have with his theme. For if he quotes it in order to prove that two people who commit fornication with each other become one flesh, he is distorting the meaning, from the true one to [a different] one quite alien to it. For Moses is not speaking here [Genesis 2:24] of the scandalous and forbidden cohabitation of a man and a woman, but of the marriage union which God blesses. For he teaches that that bond is so close and indissoluble that it surpasses the intimacy which exists between a father and son; and that certainly cannot be said about fornication.”

Having thus totally rejected this explanation, Calvin suggests two other ways in which the passage may possibly be understood. My suggested interpretation is akin to, though not completely identical with, the second of Calvin’s two alternatives.

The true understanding, I suggest, of Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 6:16 proceeds upon the basis that when Paul has chosen to use two different words here, “body” (soma) and “flesh” (sarx), it is with two different meanings. That is, he uses these words not as synonyms but in order to contrast them.

While “flesh” (sarx) can be used as a synonym for “body” (soma), its normal use is with different meaning. It refers to all that is means to be human. To say, for example, that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) means more than that Jesus had a body. A “one-flesh relationship” means that marriage is a union of all that two people are as human beings in this life.

Paul asks, “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her?” He is about to use a quotation containing the word “flesh”. If he intended his readers to see that this word links directly with what he is saying, with the same meaning, he had only to use the word “flesh” instead of “body” in this lead-up to the quotation. That he used different words should at least give us pause, and lead us to consider whether by them he meant different things.

Let us trace Paul’s whole argument. His emphatic “Never!” (v. 15) makes it plain that sexual intercourse with a prostitute is wrong. He is now clarifying why it is wrong. Sexual intercourse with a prostitute is a union of bodies, a coming together into one body. Moreover, that is all that it is.

This thus raises the question, unspoken but implicit in Paul’s reasoning, “Why is this wrong?” His answer is, “Because the Scripture says ‘The two shall become one flesh’” (6:16). The one-flesh union is a total union of two people. This is God’s intended type of union for sexual fulfillment. The one-body union, in contrast, is a mere physical coupling. So then, why is it wrong? Because it is a willful substitute for, and a rejection of, the full one-flesh union, which is God’s plan for mankind and the only legitimate sphere for the expression of our sexuality according to the will of the Creator.

Taking “body” and “flesh” as synonyms in this passage dep­rives Paul’s logical argument of any point and forces us to some very bizarre theological and pastoral conclusions. Taking “one-body” and “one-flesh” as being contrasted here (that is, accepting that Paul choose to use different words because he wan­ted to express different meanings) gives us the interpretation that Paul is showing sexual union with a prostitute to be wrong because this is only a union of bodies whereas God’s plan for the expression of human sexuality is that it takes place within, and is limited to, the total union of two human beings which Scripture refers to as the one-flesh relationship of marriage.

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

Ward

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

Questions of Contraception and Birth Control and the Teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5

Questions of Contraception and Birth Control

In many parts of the Church today there will be found doubts and hesitations about the Christian use of contraceptives, or certain types of contraceptives. The whole issue of birth control is considered suspect by some Christians. What light is thrown upon this issue from Scripture?

Seeing that in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 Paul has clearly shown the relational role of sex in marriage as quite distinct from the function of sex in procreation, then equally clearly it is legitimate for ­husband and wife to engage in sexual intercourse in fulfillment of its relational role while taking appropriate steps (viz, ­contraception) to exclude fulfillment of its procreational role. This is a direct and immediate application of Paul’s teaching which would have been as relevant in Paul’s own day when contraception, although rather less efficient than today, was widely discussed, accepted, and practised.

So what do we know about the attitude to, and practice of, contraception in the ancient world? An important expert in this field is John T. Noonan. In his major work, Contraception 9-18, Noonan sets out what is known of the contraceptive practices of the ancient world, particularly amongst the Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, and Romans. To quote some of his relevant comments: he says,

“The existence of contraceptive technique in the pre-Christian Mediterranean world is well established. The oldest surviving documents are from Egypt. Five different papyri, all dating from between 1900 and 1100 BC, provide recipes for contraceptive preparations to be used in the vulva. ... [Descriptions of the contents of the five papyri are given.] ... These prescriptions, aimed at blocking or killing the male semen, were rational ways of attempting contraception. ... The desire to prevent pregnancy by artificial means will be found even more characteristic of the society the Christians knew. ... Probably the effectiveness of these methods varied widely. ... How much was contraception practised? ... One possible limitation on diffusion scarcely existed: most writers do not speak of any moral objection to the dissemination of contraceptive information. The Hippocratic oath rejecting the use of some forms of abortion is famous; no similar pledge was made as to contraception.”

So similarly, Peter Fryer, The Birth Controllers 17ff.

The post-apostolic church came to condemn contraception, but there is no evidence of this attitude in Paul’s teaching, or indeed anywhere in the Bible. Noonan on pages 35f. discusses the Old Testament milieu and teaching, and in particular the story of Onan in Genesis 38:8-10, which is often adduced as a condemnation of contraception. His conclusions on this story and on the more general issue are:

“That contraception as such is condemned is unlikely. There is no commandment against contraception in any of the codes of law. A comparison between the provisions on other sexual matters and on contraception points up the omission. ... It is surely strange that ... the illegality of contraception [be] left to inference, if the compliers of the Pentateuch believed contraception to be unlawful. It can scarcely be surmised that there was no occasion to legislate on contraception. The story itself [i.e. about Onan] shows that coitus interruptus was a practice known by at least the first millennium B.C. The Egyptian documents reflect the practice of contraception in a country that had great cultural influence on the Jews. The people of Israel knew no immunity from the sexual customs of their neighbors. There is explicit post-Exilic legislation against homosexuality, against bestiality, and against temple prostitution (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 20:15-16, Deut. 23:18). If these acts had to be prohibited by law it seems unlikely that, in the absence of clear prohibition, the Jewish people would have believed that coitus interruptus or the use of contraceptives was immoral.”

Similarly, the evidence given by Noonan and by Fryer shows the wide extent of the knowledge of and use of ­contraception in New Testament times. There are many sexual issues dealt with explicitly in the New Testament, and many wrong practices condemned, but contraception is not included amongst them.

To sum up: Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 about the place of sexual expression in marriage, in which procreation is never once mentioned, thus strongly indicates the legitimacy of fulfilling the relational role of sex in marriage while excluding the procreational, and thus the legitimacy of the use of contraception to this end.

The post-apostolic church, contrary to Paul’s teaching here, came to the opinion that (to quote Clement of Alexandria): “To have coition other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature”, so that “husbands use their wives moderately and only for the raising up of children”. (Noonan 76 gives these and similar quotations.) Within such a view there was obviously no place for contraception, and therefore it is rejected with varying degrees of condemnation, John Chrystostom going so far as to regard “contraception as worse than homicide, a mutilation of nature” (Noonan 79). These views are totally without biblical warrant.

For further discussion of issues of birth control, including contraplantives (which inhibit implantation) and sterilization and vasectomy, see Chapter 11 and also Appendix B of my book Marriage and Divorce.

Furthermore, we need to recognize the huge and fundamental difference between animal sex and human sexuality. Re this, see my same book, Appendix A, for a detailed comparison and contrast of the character of animal sex with human sex, highlighting the totally misguided, unchristian, nature of the use of animal sex, “the birds and the bees”, as a basis for teaching children about human sexuality.

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

Ward

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

Athens and the nature of the gospel message

Did Paul make a mistake at Athens?

Some scholars have seen in Paul’s Excursus (1 Corinthians 1:17-2:15E) a deliberate repudiation by Paul of the policy which (on their view) he had followed in Athens, the city from which he had just come, where he preached philosophy and logic rather than the simple gospel (Acts 17:22-31). Paul’s approach at Athens was a failure (these scholars say), and thus he changed his message for his ministry at Corinth to a simple gospel presentation, as he outlines in his Excursus.

But this is reading some rather far-reaching conclusions into the text on the basis of flimsy evidence. It is highly probable that Paul’s comments on the Greeks seeking wisdom (1:22), and not being able to perceive the wisdom of God, are indeed made against a background of his recollection of his difficulties in proclaiming Christ at Athens. But what he did at Athens was, in accordance with his established policy (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23), to seek for a bridge for the gospel to the thinking of his hearers. He began with their religious beliefs and practices (Acts 17:22-23) and quoted their poets (Acts 17:27-29) to gain their attention and goodwill, and to win a hearing for himself. In this he was successful - but in his sermon, just as soon as he reached the subject of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31), they laughed him to a standstill (Acts 17:32). He never got to finish his address: they sneered at him; they said, “We will hear you on this subject some other time” (NEB): but they would not let him continue his presentation of the gospel to them then, and he was forced to leave them (Acts 17:33 - note particularly the force of the word “so”, ESV/RSV/TEV/NEB, “at that”, NIV). There was a small response (Acts 17:34), but the attitude of the Athenians was such that Paul could see it would be pointless to persevere there, so “After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth” (18:1).

The difference between Athens and Corinth was not that he preached an unsuccessful message at the one and had more success after changing his message for the other city, but that the Athenians were not prepared to grant him a hearing and he gave up the attempt as futile, whereas at Corinth there were significant numbers who were at least willing to listen to his message (Acts 18:4-11).

It would be interesting to learn what Paul would have said at Athens had he been permitted to finish his address. He had reached the presentation of the resurrection when the sophisticated Athenians stopped him in his tracks and said to him, “Some other time” (Acts 17:32). I suspect his message would have been very like his outline of the gospel that we find in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2: for, he says (1:23), “we preach Christ crucified - to both Jews and Gentiles.” Note the “we” and the “preach”. In context we can see that Paul is speaking of himself and his fellow apostles and evangelists. And “preach” is present tense: this is their universal and their habitual message: “Christ crucified”. There is no other.

The full gospel message is found in here, in Paul’s Excur­sus, plus 15:1-10. It has an objective and a subjective element.

Objectively, historically: Christ was crucified, dead and buried, and rose again. This is “the message (λογοσ, logos) of the cross”, which is utter foolishness to those who are lost (1:18) - but which is the demonstration of the power of God to those who are being saved (1:18, 2:4).
Subjectively, personally: It was for our sins that Christ died (15:3); and the gospel becomes effective in our individual lives when we encounter the resurrected Christ ourselves, as Paul did (15:8, 10), and experience the forgiveness of our sins that he died to accomplish for us.

This is what Paul and the others preach (15:11, again present tense), this is the gospel message in which the Corinthians had placed their faith (2:5; 15:11), and by which they are being saved (1:18; 15:3). This must continue to be the center of our own proclamation, and we can thus have confidence that, in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (2:4), we shall then see God at work saving those who believe (1:21).

Ward

(This is one of the “Practical and Pastoral Reflections” upon Paul’s Epistle, taken from
B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary.)

--

[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]