Sermon Tone Analysis

Everybody Knows

The small group session this week is called "Stand Your Ground" and the main point is, "Never compromise when the issue is a matter of right and wrong."

This sermon can really serve as a bookend to Session 3's sermon.

Last week we talked about how to give ground on an issue that was not of primary importance (whether or not it was acceptable to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols).

But there were other issues in the church in Corinth that were clear-cut and absolute.

We'll look at one of them today.

Introduction

In the culturally sensitive time we live it has become very common for Christians to look the other way when clear Biblical violations are seen in the church.

We have even redefined sin to sanitize it.

We don't want to be seen as judgmental or insensitive.

in fact we will quote

but the context is hypocritical judging

Pride is the opposite of love because it produces self-concern, while love responds to the needs of others.

Corinthian pride had produced not only disunity but also indifference and an unwillingness to exercise discipline within the church

Pride is the opposite of love because it produces self-concern, while love responds to the needs of others.

Corinthian pride had produced not only disunity but also indifference and an unwillingness to exercise discipline within the church

Last week we talked about how we don't have to get our own way to solve a conflict.

We might have strong opinions on certain issues.

We might even be completely convinced we are right.

Last week, we studied how Paul knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols.

He was secure in his Christian liberty.

However, he was very aware that  exercising his liberty could cause a younger Christian or less mature Christian to stumble into sin.

So we talked last week about responding in love when we have differing opinions on areas the Bible is not explicitly clear on.

Well, the answer is the same.

We still respond in love.

However, the way that love is expressed is very different when there is a clear-cut, explicit, absolute word from God that a certain behavior is wrong.

So today, we are going to skip back to and see how Paul responded when he was faced with such an issue.

I.

A Scandal with Two Sides ()

A. The scandalous behavior (v. 1)

reported Commly -

not even the gentiles

his fathers wife

Paul was horrified to hear that a man "had his father's wife."

This probably meant his stepmother, since the woman is not referred to as his mother.

She was most likely not a church member, since Paul says only to expel him and not her as well (V.

5, 13)

As permissive as Corinthian culture was, incest was taboo even for them.

For God's people, it should have been unthinkable (see ;)

The verb tense in the phrase "has his father's wife" suggests an ongoing relationship, not a one time thing; and no hint of repentance.

Here it was a very extreme form of sin, one that was not even practiced among the ungodly Gentiles.

Specifically, the sin was that this man had had illicit intercourse with his father’s wife.

The man’s own mother had no doubt died and the father had married again.

So his father’s wife, in this case, would then refer to his stepmother.

She was probably an unbeliever, because nothing is said about taking action against her.

The church did not have jurisdiction in her case.

Here it was a very extreme form of sin, one that was not even practiced among the ungodly Gentiles.

Specifically, the sin was that this man had had illicit intercourse with his father’s wife.

The man’s own mother had no doubt died and the father had married again.

So his father’s wife, in this case, would then refer to his stepmother.

She was probably an unbeliever, because nothing is said about taking action against her.

The church did not have jurisdiction in her case.

Everybody know and its seems OK!

Illustration - we someone that was removed from membership that the non redeemed at Walmart thought the sin was grievous.

B. The scandalous reaction (v.

2)

Paul seemed to be less shocked by the incest itself than he was by the church's reaction to it.

They were proud.

Verse 6 suggests they even boasted about it.

They might have been boasting about their open-mindedness.

Or their forgiving spirit.

This doesn't seem too far-fetched today, as we think about "tolerance" being one of the most celebrated virtues of out modern society.

Paul is shocked that the church wasn't filled with grief over this situation.

As we talked about last week, since we are all members of Christ's body, the actions of one person impact the entire body.

The Holman New Testament Commentary points out that sorrow for the sins of others is an appropriate biblical response (see ; ; ) (Pratt, 74)

ezra

Illustration - the church accepting gay marriages, couples living together, etc …

Statements like - everybody is welcome here.

We accept everybody

This is sometimes done with pride and arrogance

Illustration - if you have any biblical requirement for marriage you are subject to lawsuits and anger for the general public.

They were puffed up - proud of themselves

They should have been morning

C.

The redemptive response (v.

3-5)

5:3 In contrast to their indifference, the apostle states that even though he was absent, yet he had already judged the matter as if he were present.

5:4 He pictures the church being assembled to take action against the offender.

Although he is not present bodily, yet he is there in spirit as they meet in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus had given authority to the church and to the apostles to exercise discipline in all such cases.

Thus Paul says he would act with the power (or authority) of our Lord Jesus.

5:5 The action he would take would be to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Commentators disagree on the meaning of this expression.

Some feel that it describes the act of excommunication from the local church.

Outside the church is the sphere of Satan’s dominion (1 Jn. 5:19).

Therefore, “to deliver to Satan” would be simply to excommunicate from the church.

Others feel that the power to deliver to Satan was a special power granted to apostles but no longer in existence today.

Again, there is disagreement as to the meaning of the expression the destruction of the flesh.

Many feel that it describes physical suffering that would be used by God to break the power of sinful lusts and habits in the man’s life.

Others feel that the destruction of the flesh is a description of slow death, which would give a man time to repent and be spared.

In any case, we should remember that the discipline of believers is always calculated to bring about their restoration to fellowship with the Lord.

Excommunication is never an end in itself, but always a means toward an end.

The ultimate purpose is that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

In other words, there is no thought of the man’s eternal damnation.

He is disciplined by the Lord in this life because of the sin he has committed, but he is saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Exactly what this means is less clear.

NIV 1984 translates the phrase "so that the sinful nature may be destroyed."

There have been two interpretations to this:

"Hand over to Satan" meant the death of the man's physical body, similar to Ananias and Sapphira in ); with the confidence that his spirit would be saved on Judgment Day.

According to the NIV Application Commentary, "the severe discipline is to prevent the man from committing full-fledged apostasy and to ensure that he still will be saved in eternity" (Blomberg, 105).It could also mean the destruction of the flesh, or sinful nature.

Blomberg points out that when Paul teaches on the conflict between flesh and spirit (the two words used in verse 5), he usually isn't talking about body/soul but to old nature/new nature.

Compare , where Paul talks about two believers being handed over to Satan in order "to be taught not to blaspheme."

This would imply expulsion from the body (the church) for a limited period of time, with a view toward reconciliation at a later point.