First Corinthians 5:9-13

I thought I'd start today, and I love what Vani has done here, putting a cool scripture up that fits with the hymns that we're playing. Jesus spoke these things, and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You. Even as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom you have given him, he may give eternal life." I don't know about you, but I love John 17.

So we've been working our way through 1 Corinthians. The last three weeks we've done two-thirds of chapter 5. We'll do the last third today. Basically the issues are There's a gross immorality in the city of Corinth and there's a man in the body of believers there who is living with his stepmother.

And as big a sin as that is, Paul is not focusing as much on that as he is on the arrogance that causes toleration by the church and which cause divisions in the church. The fact that they tolerated this sin was a much bigger issue with Paul than the sin itself. So Paul decided to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so his spirit might be saved. We talked about that, that only an apostle would have that kind of authority to deliver someone specifically to Satan. But we also understand that if we live in Satan's world, we're under his tutelage. And as a believer, God is using it for the destruction of the flesh.

For what reason? That our spirits might be saved. And then last week we talked about leaven. Leaven is a kind of an interesting thing. It's a yeast. And if it gets in, it slowly but surely permeates the whole lump. You see it in all forms of society and churches and sin, no matter what the society is, it seems that over time it just deteriorates to more tolerance for more sin, to more tolerance for more sin.

There was a man a few years ago named Bork that was up for the Supreme Court and he didn't get it. But he wrote a book, and I never read the book, but I love the title. The title was called, Slouching Towards Gomorrah. That's leaven, slouching towards Gomorrah.

But then he tells the Corinthians that from God's perspective he viewed them as unleavened, meaning their position in Christ was that they were clean. Now they were acting like they weren't clean and he tells them to root out all of that leaven that's in your experience, but from a positional standpoint you're unleavened.

Because when Christ makes you free, you will be free indeed. Now you may not live like you're free, but you are free from God's perspective, and His perspective is the only one that counts. They were to clean out all the old leaven in their lives. And why? The reason is that your Passover lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, has been sacrificed. In other words, redemption has happened.

On the night of Exodus, when the angel of death came into Egypt, they ate that Passover dressed and ready to leave town with unleavened bread. And when the angel of death came in the middle of the night, Pharaoh summons Moses and says, get your people out of here. So they left that very night. And so what protected them from the angel of death?

It was the slaying of the lamb. Each family had to have a lamb and they all had to sacrifice it on the same day and put the blood on their doorpost so that the angel of death would pass over. Believers like you and I, our Passover lamb has already been sacrificed.

So we're covered. We've escaped and we should live like we are already redeemed. Now as a redeemed we are continually to celebrate our new life with sincerity and truth and that was the last verse we talked about. We're to live in a celebratory environment in Christ Jesus with sincerity and truth because we have been redeemed. We're already there positionally. So today we're going to deal with the last four verses of the Chapter 5, I thought I'd read him.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people. I didn't at all mean with immoral people of this world or with the covetous or swindlers or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Not even to eat with such a one.

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Command, remove the wicked man from among yourself. So we have a situation here where Paul is giving instruction and he continues to deal with this issue of believers relationship to the word fornicators and now other sinful activities inside and now outside the church also. He did this so his readers would understand that they do have a responsibility in this area of their lives, in their depraved city, they were to abandon their arrogance and self-righteousness and depend on the Lord permanently.

So, verse 9 says, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people. I must admit in my preparing this lesson, I kept running into people's opinions about stuff. And almost everybody I read up until a couple days ago said that when Paul says, I've written in previous letter to Corinth, what he was talking about was some other letter that he had written to Corinth that didn't make the cut when it came to be in scripture. And in it, he had urged the Corinthians to avoid associating with fornicators.

And if you look in chapter 1 verse 11, he says that he had heard from Chloe about dissension in the church. How did he hear from Chloe? Probably a letter. First Corinthians is a response to Chloe saying, hey, we've got dissension in the church here. And here's the situation. So there seems to have been another letter from Paul to the church, which is referred to right here, I wrote to you in my letter. Out of all of this writing, the Holy Spirit selected two to be in Scripture though, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians.

So I'm doing really well, you know, I'm kind of adopting this opinion. And then I read an old brother and guy named William Kelly, and he totally takes issue with this. He said, It appears not sufficient reason, and it uses a term called a priori, which is a legal term that means existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience as a faculty or a characteristic trait. It makes no sense, I know, but that's what that word means. So here's his question.

Why an inspired apostle might not have written an epistle, which God meant to lapse after accomplishing its end, without filling a constant place in the scripture? Therefore, there would be no difficulty in my mind if allusion here was made to an epistle of Paul which was never included in scripture. But here's what he says. But where's the evidence that this is in fact or any other epistle is here intended than the one that he's writing? In other words, this is it. First Corinthians is the epistle he wrote. In the latter case, he talks about this thing called an epistolatory heiress. I'm telling you, I'm not a language guy. And so I went right over this like it wasn't even there.

But part of this discussion was, I went to Romans 16.22, Colossians 4.16, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians, and those verses talk about communications, but only in 2nd Corinthians 7.8. And I'll read it to you.

For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, he's referring to 1st Corinthians, I don't regret it, though I do regret it, for I see that the letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while. This is the only incident in scripture that exemplifies a reference to a former letter. This is the only place it does that, as the context necessitates where the contrast is plain between the two letters. But there is nothing of that sort to determine that there was a letter prior to 1 Corinthians.

As the usage is, the other way is far more frequent. So here's the reasons that he gives. The notion, and I'm reading from his notes, the notion of a previous letter involves the inference that the present letter is a correction of their misunderstanding of a former command. of his as regards to keeping company with fornicators. He says this appears very unreasonable. So is the idea that there must be something in the preceding part of this epistle bearing on the point for it's quite sufficient for the passage that he should be so instructing them right now. He must be referring to what went before, that he is referring to what went before is that to deny this Ariskens. And I think I'll explain that as we go on.

So, far from being irrelevant and unnecessary, if he meant the letter in which he was now engaged, in other words, he's talking about, I spoke to you previously in this letter here. If he meant the letter in which he was now engaged, it is in full force and precision. Now, what's the difference?

He says, I've written to you, and our translation says, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate. When you sort of take a closer look towards it, it says, I have written to you in the epistle, this one, this one, not to keep company with fornicators. He's exhorting them to the effect that this is an effect right now. If he would have said, because he's going to in the next verse, he's going to say something about, well, I forgot to mention something or I forgot to say what I meant to say, like it's He says that I'm telling you, what I meant was, you can avoid fornicators in the church, but you don't have to avoid them in the world. Well, here's what he says about that. Here in the same tense is used, and must be allowed, that what is going to say in the present epistle, only serving to distinguish the guarded sentence, a more definite application of the principle in verse 11 from a general statement. In other words, what he means is this.

I wrote you... I'll put it this way. He doesn't think an apostle would write a letter to a church and in that letter he would either have made a mistake or gave you the whole thing. So he had to write another one to make up for the lack of information in the first one. That's his whole premise. And I agree. I saw that and I agreed with it. I said, well, that's exactly right.

The apostles didn't write letters and hope they made mustard to get into the Bible. 1 Peter that we're studying and Romans. Paul didn't write four letters to Romans and hope one of them stuck on the wall. They were so precise in what they did because they were directed by the Spirit of God that the one and only epistle is 1 Corinthians. So if we say, I wrote to you, I wrote to you in my letter, instead of my letter, it should be the letter, not to associate with immoral people.

Now, the word translated associate is a triple compound word made up of the following. Sun, well, I probably, you can see the word up there, there's no way I can pronounce it. Sun, ana, meganustia. Close enough. Sun means to associate in fellowship. Ana, A-N-A, indicates a repetitiveness, repeatedly associating. And the verb meganuma, which means to mix with.

So he's saying in this one word, I wrote to you not to be constantly associating with fornicators. That's all this. This one word says all of that. The Greek word here for immoral is exactly the same word that we had in verse 1, when he said, talked about, gee, there's some immorality going on in your place that even the Gentiles don't do. It's the word fornia, still the same word, and it just means fornicators are immoral.

So the point is that the Corinthians were not to intimately be hanging out with immoral believers. In view of this instruction, why would he say that? Why would he do it? Why wouldn't he say, look, I don't want you hanging around with immoral people in your body of believers. I want you to disassociate yourself from them. Because hanging around with them shows you tolerate them and you tolerate their behavior. An incestuous brother in the church is an especially serious problem.

If you go to 2 Thessalonians 3.14, Paul says, if anyone does not obey our instructions in this letter, take special note of that person and don't associate with him so that he will be put to shame. Paul used the same phrase, that long word, don't associate with him in 2 Thessalonians. As we go on now, I think it'll come together.

Verse 10 says, I did not at all mean with the immoral people of the world, or with the covetous swindlers or idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. So he's clarifying, and this is where Kelly hangs his hat on the fact that this is the only epistle written. He's hanging his hat on the fact that he's clarifying that in writing that he had not and did not mean just believers. Verse 1, previous verses, to completely disassociate from fornicators in the world.

Why? Because separation from immoral people in the world is different than separation from immoral believers. They're different criterias. Even the Lord Jesus ate with publicans and sinners and anybody. He never checked their spiritual ID. He just ate with them. He did not mean either that they should avoid contact with unbelievers who were sinful in their attitudes and actions towards the people of God. He didn't mean that either. If that were the case, It would require every believer to isolate himself out of the real world. And for believers to exist in kind of a Christian commune, insulated from all contact with unbelievers.

Well, I'm not saying to you that some people haven't tried that, but we live in their world. You know, like J. Vernon McGee says, we're just passing through. This is their world. We're hanging around for a while, but this is not our home. So this approach to life is both unrealistic and unfaithful to God, I think, who's called us to be salt and light in the world.

If you look at Matthew 5.14-16, Matthew says, you are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden, nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket. But they put it on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

Matthew is written before the church begins, but the principle is the same. That was the original idea in God, Jehovah, calling out Israel. Israel was to be the mediator between God and the whole world. And the world was supposed to look at Israel and realize, boy, they are really special and look how different they are. And maybe they have something.

Well, of course, Israel didn't live up to that. I'm not so sure the church is doing a much better job. But the point is that we live in their world, but we don't live according to their criteria. But I do recognize that there are believers today who struggle with the unbiblical view of separation that does move towards isolationism rather than just sanctification. We've been set apart in Christ, but set apart in this environment to Him.

What would be a good prescription for living in the world? And I would say, make a note of this. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul says, make your goals to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands just as we instructed you before. Then people who are not Christians will respect the way you live and you will not need to depend on others. That's really great advice. We walk with the Lord, we walk in the Spirit, and others that are around us in what we call a sphere of influence will notice, and they'll want to know.

If God calls them just because of the way we live, not because of what we say, but how we live. In the verses that follow in 9 through 13, Paul shows that in exhorting Christians to exercise holy discipline or a separate discipline and live a life of sincerity and truth, he's referring only to Christians.

To extend this to a man in the world would be a totally unreal possibility. It just wouldn't work because they can't do it. In short, Paul is showing that brotherly contact is restricted to believers and so is discipline in the church. To extend it to a man of the world is on false ground and would make dealings with people largely impossible. Christian companionship, on the other hand, demands transparency. Transparency of life on the part of those who enjoy it. Chester McCauley makes a really interesting point here. He calls it the absurdity of separation as viewed by Christians.

To maintain separation from all these types of people would require, according to the verse, leaving the planet. Maybe that's why everybody wants to get to Mars so bad. But I mean that's, this is an absurdity. that say the only way you can live like that is that you have to leave the planet. Well, if you're a Star Wars or Star Trek fan like I am, you know what I discovered watching that series? I love that series. Every planet they went to, guess who lived there?

Sinners! But it's an important principle to be observed. The proper application of God's Word never involves an absurdity. Never! But church history is replete with examples like the Corinthians where they misuse scripture. That's from Chester Macaulay.

So verse 11 he says, but actually I wrote to you not to associate with so-called brothers, if he's immoral, if he's an immoral person or a covetous or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or a swindler, not even to eat with such a one. So we've got to take this apart a little bit. If anyone called a brother is, say, impure, or covetous, or an idolater, you're not supposed to hang out with him, not even to have a meal with him.

The meaning is not that we ought not to take the Lord's table. He's not talking about the Lord's table. He's talking about, you want to come over for dinner. The corrupt and violent professor of Christ is to be avoided even an ordinary social act. That's the command. Not merely on the most solemn occasion in Christian worship. Now look at this term, so-called brother. You would think maybe this guy is faking being a Christian.

It kind of If he's living like that, and the Brethren were famous for this, I think, they would say, well, maybe he never really got saved in the first place. Because if he really did get saved, he wouldn't be acting like this. Or the Reformers would say, well, he's not going to persevere to the end, so he was probably not chosen. So I would say Hamilton Smith said, if, however, one called a brother is living an open and unjudged sin, were not to have company with him or show any fellowship with him by eating a meal with him. Paul clarified that he had meant that the Corinthian Christian should not associate with such a person if he or she professed to be a believer. The thing is though that this phrase in Greek literally means one who bears the name brother. And that's how they get the translation of so-called brother. Lots imply that a sinner was only a professing Christian.

But you know what? Whether you're a Christian or not is between you and the Lord. Period. The church is full of spiritual ID checkers, but really the point is You're saved because the Lord knows you're saved and you know you're saved. Nobody else would bet their equity and their mortgage on whether you were or not, but I'm sure about me.

But Paul assumes this guy is a believer. He just assumes it. He does it because he requires separation from this person. He wouldn't do that if this guy was not a believer. In particular, they were to exclude such a person from the table of fellowship and other Christians in the church.

Now in the early church, eating together was a large part of the fellowship. And it was believers who enjoyed one another's company all the time. And if you study Acts in early church, other than the believing communities, and I was thinking this morning, The church in Corinth wasn't a megachurch on the corner of First and Acropolis. It was Chloe's house, and Paulus over here, and Paul over here, and they were home churches. And they were the only people in that city that were believers.

So they gravitated toward each other because they had like-mindedness about things. You can see how important in the early church, fellowship with one another is a critical part of your life. And if there was somebody in the midst of your church, I don't know, 15, 20, 25 people at max, who behaved like this, the threat of kicking them out of the church really meant something to the person.

Which today, it wouldn't mean that much to us, would it? Well, that's okay. We'll just go down to the next church down the block. Or I didn't want to be there anyway. Or I don't like what they're doing. Or whatever. Because the church has been diluted with leaven, it's not a big deal to get kicked out of a church today. It would be with these people, though. It was huge. So, non-association was really kind of the last resort of faithful believers in their social dealings with their disobedient brethren.

Again, back to 1 Thessalonians 5.14. We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, but encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, and be patient with everyone. Believers live a life that just doesn't fit with the way the world functions. A believer living sinfully is noticeable.

Restoration in love is the first step. So the idea is, there's all kinds of instruction in Paul's epistles about how to restore such a one who has, Courtney likes to say, has gone off the rails. And love is the first step. The very last step is not to associate with them.

So, professing believer is described by a set of six nouns. They do not merely describe an activity, but they describe a fixed disposition. This is not someone who committed one sin, made one mistake. This is somebody who is engaged in this behavior. God doesn't judge by just one incident. He judges by the totality of one's character, according to Chester McCauley.

These are all inconsistent. These six things are totally inconsistent for believers to live under God's grace, who live under God's grace with the Holy Spirit as their life. The new principle of life in Christ Jesus is in fact that. It is a brand new principle of life. it functions a different way. So when you take a look at these sins, Paul here seems to suggest rather comprehensively, and I hate to do this to Roger, but Roger's going to expand on this over the next three weeks.

So first one is a fornicator. That's our word, pornos, And it can mean debauchery, it can be a whoremonger, it can be an immoral person. Again, keep in mind that we're talking about not just an incident, but a character of a person. Greedy, holding or desiring to have more. Eager for gain, avarice, hence a defrauder, somebody who's covetous. That's harder to detect, but that's one of the ones that he mentions here. Idolaters. This means base of an image, a servant, or a worshipper, an idolater related to God in terms of worship.

Interesting, on Wednesday we're in Exodus. Exodus, the second commandment, in Exodus 24-6 says, you shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or the water under the earth. Boy, there went all the guys in the movies right there. You know those superhero movies? You shall not worship them nor serve them for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on children on the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. Wow, that would be what a penalty that would be. But showing loving kindness to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments. An idolater, I thought a lot in my life about being an idolater.

When you see this commandment, the first commandment is, I am the Lord thy God and I won't have false gods before me. And I got to thinking one day, I have a sin nature and I stand before God. I'm violating the first commandment because my sin nature thinks it's God. And God won't have me before him. And yet, why did he have to co-crucify us with Christ? There's the reason right there to get rid of my idolatry, to get rid of that man that I was associated with, who is an idolater, my sin nature, the man in Adam.

The next one is a reviler. People who abuse others verbally, they scold or upbreak people and they do it angrily and abusively. We all know people like that. We call them in our society toxic. Drunkards, I don't have to go into a long discussion about that. People who are addicted or enslaved to substances. Swindlers. Grasping, covetous, not content with an honest profit. Extortion. Greedy, lack of integrity.

The failure of many church leaders to discipline professing believers who practice these things today is sad, according to Constable." That was his conclusion, that in the church today, that's really sad. Referring again to 2 Thessalonians, if anyone does not obey our instructions, take special note of that person. Well, here's six things. Special note. And don't associate with them so he will be put to shame. Do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." In other words, try to restore him.

Verse 12, for what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? Paul's authority as an apostle didn't extend to judging or prescribing discipline for unbelievers and their sins. He has no mandate from God to discipline the world outside the church. He has no mandate to correct social injustice.

But if you take a look at chapter 2 here in verse 12, it will begin to shed some light. And the other verse, chapter 13 of Romans, lays out police power and that kind of thing. So God has put that in place. but not the apostles. And Paul never says, you know, tell those non-believers that they need to shape up. He never says that. He did eventuate the condition of unbelievers in Romans chapter 1. He just laid out what they were. But that's not what's in view here.

His ministry and the ministry of other Christians in judging and disciplining sin takes place only within the church. And judging means more than just identifying and criticizing, it means also disciplining, as this context shows. It's no business of the Christian to attempt to put the world right by judging its evil.

Guess who gets to do that? God is going to do that. Our responsibility is to judge any evil that may manifest itself within our company, our Christian company. Judging and disciplining unbelievers is totally God's work, totally His work. I got up this morning, I was watching a preacher on television for a minute, a guy that I like, and he was talking about sin, and he made a point. that there's always a burden and a consequence for sin, whether you're a believer or not. Non-believers have consequences for their sins. So do we. God deals with that situation. God has delegated human responsibility to people as his regents.

If you look in Genesis 9, 5 and 6, he says, surely I will require your lifeblood from every beast I will require it, and from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man." Whose life was it anyway? It was God's life that he gave us. Whoever sheds a man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Why? For in the image of God he was made.

Another reference to Romans chapter 13. So we as human beings, Christian human beings, should bear their fair share of the weight of the responsibility and the society we live in. But the point here is that the Corinthians and all believers should exercise discipline in church life to an extent beyond what our ordinary responsibility is in civilian life. Paul did not explain the objective in view in church of discipline in this passage. Elsewhere we learn that is always the restoration of the offender to fellowship which God has in mind. Everything that he does to deal with believers is restoration.

Again, 2 Corinthians chapter 2 verse 5 through 11, but I will just read 7 and 8. so that on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort him. Otherwise, such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore, I urge you to reaffirm your love for him."

You know what he's talking about? He's talking about the guy that he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5, verse 1, to put him out of the church and turn him over to Satan. Well, evidently it worked. And now this man wanted re-entrance into fellowship, and they weren't going to let him in.

So Paul has to instruct them, let him in, forgive him and comfort him. Otherwise, such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Therefore, I urge you to affirm your love to him. So what Paul instructs them to do is the last method of restoration. But in this case it worked. So the final verse in chapter 5 performs two tasks according to Chester McCauley.

First, although neither Paul nor the church is to judge those outside the church, the people outside the church don't escape judgment. And second, it is the duty of the church to put the wicked man out of their flock at this point. Our major concern should always be the purity of the church and not the purity of society. It's not to say that we should be indifferent to the evils of society, but our personal position in Christ, every one of us has a position in Christ, and our righteousness in Christ is to be the primary concern of our life.

Colossians 3. You say this to a believer, they have no understanding what you mean. But Paul says to us, since you be risen with Christ, since that's true, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God. Set your mind, your affections, your whole focus on things above and not on things of the earth. And then he tells you why. Because you have died and your life is hid with Christ and God.

We should be aware that the attitudes of the world can easily be absorbed into a solid church. This is true even when we're not conscious of the fact. Eleven, our only protection, and not only does Macaulay say this, but the man I was watching this morning said the same thing, our only protection is a day-by-day intake of the Word of God. That's it. That's the wall, the Word of God. Let's close. Father, how we thank you. We thank you how careful you are to teach us to be alert, but to also be focused on your Son through your Word every minute of every day. And we pray in the precious name of the Lord Jesus, Amen.