Tag: Israel

Devotional: All God’s Creatures (Genesis 1:30)

On By Janine TuggleIn Animals, Devotional, Genesis, Old Testament, Proverbs, Psalms, Theology 
“And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food” (Genesis 1:30).

We may wonder why God created all the different animals. We read in Genesis 1 that God created the sea creatures and the birds that fly in the air on the fifth day. On the sixth day, He created every living creature that “creeps” on the ground.

Every animal shows God’s glory and is a glory to God. He gave man instructions and responsibility to have dominion over all creeping things on the earth. This does not mean ownership; it is about stewardship. Man is to take care of the animals.

According to one source, over 120 animal species are mentioned in the Bible. Animals show God’s creativity. There are many large and many small. Some are beautiful and some are strange; some have many legs. Some have none.

Animals have been used as a teaching tool, for example:

“Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:6–8).

Animals have been used to accomplish God’s will. He used animals with the 10 plagues. He used a great fish when Jonah was swallowed by it. God caused a donkey to speak so Balaam would obey Him. He sent quail to provide food for the Israelites and ravens to bring bread and meat to Elijah.

These are just a few examples of what we can read and learn from animals. In the next few weeks, we will learn more interesting tidbits and lessons from animals mentioned in the Bible.

“Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps. . . . Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds!” (Psalm 148:7, 10).

Hymn: “All Things Bright and Beautiful“

The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses: A Selected Comparative Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ANE, College Papers, Exodus, Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Old Testament Background, Women Studies

[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]

If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.

Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.

While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

Sources of Authority

The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.

On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).

The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.

On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads, 

“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).

The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.

Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:

“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)

“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).

The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.

Relationship with the Governed

The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.

On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:

When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)

Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.

The Status of Women

The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery. 

§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)

Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.

Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141). 

§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her. 
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)

It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.

On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)

There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32). 

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)

Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame. 

16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)

Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:

22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)

Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.

Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.

If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.

Impact on the Society

The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to: 

“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”

This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.

Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).

Observations

Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.

Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.

Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.

Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.

Bibliography

(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.

(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.

(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.

Purge the Evil Person: A Brief Analysis of 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, Bible Study, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, Essays, Exegesis, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Paul's Letters3 Comments

One of the most difficult public displays of Christian obedience to God is the withdrawal of fellowship from a recalcitrant Christian. It is perhaps one of the most dynamic of commands to follow in the New Testament. Before reaching such a public excision, the Lord Jesus addressed the problem of confronting a wayward brother with the view to “gain” him (Matt 18:15-17).

Preliminary Thoughts

The Lord sets forth a four-pronged redemptive procedure that begins under the most private of circumstances – “you and him alone” (18:15); in this setting, then, a private appeal to repent is offered. If the rebellious child of God maintains their posture, then the circle of brotherly concern widens to “one or two others” that come to witness the call to repentance (18:16).

Unfortunately, even at this point, some are so entrenched in sin, that they will not hear the admonitions; consequently, the Lord says, “if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” (18:17). The publication of the situation allows the church as a whole to make an appeal to their fellow saint. All the “ties that bind” are summoned to invite this wayward soul to repent.

The Lord acknowledges that some will not be gained back to the fold by these loving and redemptive attempts, and sets forth the final process – consider the rebellious Christian as both an outsider of the blessings of the Christian covenant and a traitor who has chosen to serve Satan instead of Christ. In other words, the congregation must “disassociate the offender from the church fellowship.”[1] The saved has now become the lost – how ironically tragic.

A Flagrant Issue

The New Testament has several examples of discipline; most usually they are of a very flagrant issue. For example, in 3 John 9-10 the apostle of love forewarns his audience that he will bring discipline upon Diotrephes the “missions” killer. Or, when Paul abbreviates his role in the discipline of Hymenaeus and Alexander (“delivered them to Satan”), who made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim 1:19-20).

However, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul deals with an outlandish mode of porneia that is not even “tolerated” among the pagans (5:1 ESV). Porneia is the Greek word that is commonly translated “fornication” in older translations, and in newer translations as “sexual immorality.”

The truth of the matter is, porneia is a generic term for “illicit sexual intercourse.”[2] It is an umbrella term, and context must determine the type of sexual act that is under consideration. The flagrant form of porneia Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5:1 is this, “a [Christian] man has his father’s wife” (i.e. his stepmother). The severity of this behavior is evident by the fact that Paul appeals to the fact that Gentiles – or pagans – do not even permit such behavior.

This context provides the most insightful New Testament example of withdrawing Christian fellowship from recalcitrant saints. And as careful Bible students, we must definitely rehearse the valuable instruction of these verses.

The Duel Rebuke

Paul moves from the case of the man with his stepmother and draws attention to the congregation’s part in this flagrant relationship. The church had been “arrogant” and not “mournful” about the sinful relationship (5:2) and argues immediately that removal of the Christian was the appropriate reaction. The church at Corinth was laden with arrogance (4:6, 18-19), and here Paul rebukes them for this dispositional flaw that was affecting their decision-making process on this matter.

Paul demonstrates that not only is the rebellious person accountable to God, but that the church too cannot subscribe to a lax posture about known – public – sin in the church. The church is responsible and accountable to respond to a situation where a saint’s sin has become public knowledge. The apostle prescribes that the congregation should respond with a period of “mourning” and move into “disciplinarian action.” This is the divine reaction to sins of a public and flagrant nature (1 Cor 14:37).

The Judgment

With the next flip of his pen, Paul moves into position to make the judgment Corinth should have – he places judgment upon the Christian and the sexually immoral relationship with his un-Christian stepmother (5:3-5). There is no clear statement regarding the woman in view, aside from the fact that she is the wife of his father.[3]

However, since the judgment is upon the Christian man, “it seems safe to assume that she is not a Christian.”[4] Paul writes:

When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor 5:4-5 ESV)

The context for such a procedure is the public assembly of the church. This recalls the instruction of Jesus regarding the procedures to discipline another for sin (Matt 18:15-17), the last two of which are set in a public context. Paul assesses that this situation is a public matter; and consequently, the licentious Christian must be disciplined immediately by the church in the public eye. The goal of this withdrawal is redemptive – “that his spirit may be saved.”[5]

The judgment is upon his sin and behavior, but the goal of the discipline is to restore him – i.e. to regain him (Matt 18:15). In Hebrews 12:12-13, the author demonstrates that discipline is a privilege of sonship (12:5-8) and that the purpose is so “that the lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed” (12:13).

Discipline is not designed to “disable permanently those who have experienced the crippling effects of sin. Rather, His purpose is to heal and restore the repentant to spiritual usefulness”;[6] in other words, “that we may share his holiness” (Heb 12:10).

The Imagery of Influence and Purity

Corinth was crippling the unfaithful man’s ability to be restored by failing to address his immoral relationship. Paul makes very clear that both the church and the man were in a spiritually precarious position. Paul appeals to the imagery of the Passover, where preparing unleavened bread demanded the need to remove the leaven (yeast) from the lump of dough (5:6-7).

The bread is the congregation, and the leaven (yeast) is the culprit sinner (and his influence) in the church, and Paul speaks very clearly that the bread must be prepared for the Passover feast which is the Christian faith. From this, the apostle suggests that the Christian who is in a sexually immoral relationship with his stepmother must be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, the church would be affected by the “leaven” (influence) of this morally and spiritually rebellious relationship.

But the truth is, they were already being afflicted by his influence, making it necessary for a public withdrawal to maintain the purity of the loaf (i.e. the church). David Williams, in his profitable work, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character, writes:

Paul had been speaking of the leaven (yeast), every trace of which had to be cleaned out of the house before the Passover was celebrated. On this analogy, he demanded that the Corinthians put their “house” in order by removing from among themselves what he called the “old leaven,” a particularly appalling instance of sexual immorality that the church had condoned (vv. 1-5).[7]

The apostle, then, was addressing what should have been quite obvious; but, because of the Corinthian’s arrogance the real issue (i.e. the issue of purity) was not seen as relevant – how shameful. May we strive to learn then the lesson of Corinth.

The Place of Christian Judgment

Paul later recalls a previous letter, where he instructed them “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (5:9 ESV). But it does not seem that they were even practicing such instruction, evident by the fact that they had allowed this immoral situation a harbor of protection in the bay of misguided church fellowship. Yet, Paul did not even suggest merely sexually immoral people in general. He meant defiant immoral Christians are not to be associated with (5:9-11).

It is very interesting to observe that Paul moves from a specific case of porneia, and ends with formulating a generic principle against Christians practicing immorality in general – poneroi (i.e. evil doers).[8] Verse 11 is very clear that purity focused Christians are not to be involved with Christians who practice evil, and it is transparent where Paul stands on the matter by saying that eating a meal with them is forbidden. Such a withdrawal of Christian fellowship reflects the disfellowshipped Christian’s heavenly reality – estrangement from God (Matt 18:18-20).

Christians have a responsibility to each other before the Lord (Matt 18:15-17). This responsibility is to “judge” each other regarding sin when necessary (1 Cor 5:12). To support his case, Paul appeals back to a formula common in Deuteronomy that highlights the need to judge insiders rather than outsiders of the covenant (17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 24, 24:7),[9] and affirms: “God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’” (5:13).[10]

The Aftermath: Mission Accomplished

What ever became of this gentleman and his situation after being withdrawn from? The answer depends upon the view taken as to how many letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. It is true that Paul mentions a previous letter written to them prior to 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9), but did he write a third letter that would chronologically fit between 1 and 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8)?[11]

Without delving into this academic discussion, we set forth our assessment of the discussion. Essentially, we assume for the time being that Paul wrote three letters: (1) A lost letter prior to 1 Corinthians (5:9); (2) 1 Corinthians known as the “sorrowful letter” or “severe letter” (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8); and (3) 2 Corinthians.

Chronologically placing 1 and 2 Corinthians together contributes greatly in answering our question. In 2 Corinthians 2:6-11, Paul speaks of the reward of making the Corinthians sorrowful, and a certain punishment rendered by the majority of the congregation upon a certain individual. The connection is drawn that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 is the same as the gentleman made sorrowful in 2 Corinthians 2.

This man was sufficiently disciplined (2:6), and now the congregation’s responsibility was three-fold (2:7-8):

(1) “forgive him”

(2) “comfort him”

(3) “reaffirm brotherly love.”

There will a great deal of Divine judgment upon those that do not respond in this fashion to a penitent brother or sister, for this is a great test of Christian obedience (2 Cor 2:9-10; Matt 6:14-16).

To the apostle, it appears that the matter of restoration of fellowship is just as important as the withdrawal of fellowship; the reason being, Satan is prepared to take advantage of our shortcomings at these pivotal moments (2:11). Would it not be appropriate to make the restoration announcement just as public as the withdrawal process was? It would definitely seem so (Philem 10-21).[12]

Conclusion

It seems important to stress, therefore, that the same amount of effort it took in the discipline process should follow in the restoration process. There is to be no more invisible line of fellowship between the restored and the brethren, for that is over and the saint has returned. Neither should a “we’ll see” attitude embody the brotherhood, but a loving reception – a mirror of heaven – is expected by Paul.

This is the victory of faith, the power of the blood of Christ, and the faithfulness of God. This is a great test of Christian faithfulness. May we be ever minded to discipline when needed and repair the splintered connections of fellowship after restoration. May we likewise be faithful to receive those who have been restored.

Sources

  1. J. Carl Laney, “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” BSac 143 (1986): 361.
  2. William E. Vine, et al, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:252; Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 532.
  3. The phrase reads: hoste gunaika tina tou patros echein. Simon J. Kistemaker observes that “in Jewish circles, the wording wife of his father meant ‘stepmother,'” and observes that God repeatedly told the Israelites to refrain from sexual relationships with their father’s wife (Lev 18:8, 20:11; Deut 22:30, 27:20). “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline,” Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 35.
  4. Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997), 87. Read my book review regarding South’s excellent but brief volume.
  5. Some view the expulsion here as permanent, and redemption only to be found at the end of time (Harris 146-48); however, such a conclusion runs counter to the instruction of Jesus on discipline (Matt 18:15-17), to Paul’s use of similar language in disciplining and restoring false teachers (1 Tim 1:20), and the general tenor of the New Testament regarding cleansing of sin in the Christian’s life (1 John 1:6-2:3). Gerald Harris, “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5,” Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, ed. Brian S. Rosner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 129-51. Cf. Wayne Jackson’s article on the forgiveness available to Christians in sinful lifestyles is quite compelling: repentance, confession, prayer, and the cleansing blood of the faithful Christ. “God’s Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 7 July 2004).
  6. Laney, “Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” 355-56.
  7. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (1999; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 248.
  8. Peter S. Zaas, “‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst'” (1 Cor 5:13b),” JBL 103.2 (1984): 259.
  9. Zaas points out that aside from a minor adjustment by Paul, the Greek phrase is parallel with the LXX (i.e. Septuagint) formulations in Deuteronomy (“‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst,'” 259).
  10. Richard B. Hays has a brief discussion on this passage in his work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). For Hays, Paul showed, if not in retrospect, that the Corinthians are part of the same covenant tradition as Ancient Israel. As such, the use of this formulae to expel the fornicator would have implicitly emphasized this relationship and demanded the logical obedience the congregation is to display in the removal of the sexually immoral brother from the congregation. In this action, they show themselves to be Israel – not figurative, but real Israel. Whether or not the Corinthians completely understood Paul’s use of this excommunication formulae Hays cannot prove, but he does respond to this point: “In this instance, [the] direct quotation becomes an allusive trope: only the reader who recognizes the source of the words will grasp the bold theological proposal implied by Paul’s metaphorical act of addressing Corinthian Gentiles as children of the covenant” (97).
  11. Daniel B. Wallace, “2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” Bible.org. For those interested in this issue, Wallace’s discussion will be of help on some of the complexities of this issue.
  12. James Pilgrim, Withdrawing from the Disorderly (West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d.). I agree with Pilgrim’s observation that, “To fail to forgive and receive the returning brother is as wicked as not marking him in the beginning (2 Cor 2:11)” (17).

Bibliography

Harris, Gerald Harris. “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5.” Pages 129-51 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1989.

Jackson, Wayne. “Church Discipline – A Tragic Neglect,.” ChristianCourier.com(Accessed: 8 June 2000).

Jackson, Wayne. “God’s Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children.” ChristianCourier.com.

Kistemaker, Simon J. “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline.” Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 32-46.

Laney, J. Carl. “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline.” BSac 143.572 (Oct.-Dec. 1986): 353-63.

Pilgrim, James. Withdrawing from the Disorderly. West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d.

South, Tommy. That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline. Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997.Joseph H. Thayer,

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 1896. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Vine, William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984.

Wallace, Daniel B. “2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.” Bible.org.

Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. 1999. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Zaas, Peter S. “‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst'” (1 Cor 5:13b).” JBL 103.2 (1984): 259.