February 19, 2016                   1 Corinthians 5:12 – 6:14

Download discussion questions:  1 Corinthians 5_12-6_14 lawsuits

Our discussion began with a review of what we had seen in the previous passages in last week’s study about judgment (1 Corinthians 4:21-61, Matthew 18:15-35; Luke 6:31-45).  Since this passage continues Paul’s remarks about judgment, that seemed a good place to start.

The comments from the group noted that the teaching from Paul and the words of Jesus in the Gospel passages focused on restoration as the goal of judgment, with judgment understood as discernment rather than condemnation.  The concern over sin was both for the destructive effects in the life of the individual as well as the spreading influence (like leaven) on others in the church.

With that background, we looked at the people or groups Paul mentions in this passage:  outsiders, those within, neighbors, brethren, unbelievers, even angels.  The distinctions seemed to be those “inside” who are united by a common desire to obey and follow God’s way, and those “outside” who care nothing for the Faith.  That distinction and the principles learned last week fit together.  Those inside the community of believers, even when they fall into sin, have a need for restoration.  Discerning judgment is the loving service of other believers to help in that restoration process.  For those outside, restoration is not the issue.  Regeneration is the issue, and judgment (either discernment or condemnation) is generally not the best way to lead someone to the Lord.  Paul makes that distinction clear:  “What have I to do with judging outsiders? … Those outside God judges” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

Likewise, the sharp distinction between those inside the church and those outside is the basis for Paul’s prohibition against taking another believer to court.  Those inside the church, at least some of whom are wise (6:5), should be able to administer discerning judgment between disputing believers (perhaps using the principles from Matthew 18 and Luke 6 discussed last week).  Our group noted that the relationship of love among brethren in the church are a sharp contrast to the world’s adversarial legal system.  The relationships among Christians are (or should be) much more valuable and precious than whatever might be gained in a court decision:  “Why not rather be wronged?  Why not rather be defrauded?” (v. 7).  In fact, Paul says that those who take a fellow believer to court are themselves guilty of the very wrongdoing they are trying to avoid (v. 8).

Then Paul introduces a list of several sinful behaviors (v. 9-10) that will not inherit God’s kingdom.  A question that seemed perplexing for a while in our discussion:  Why did Paul include this list?  What does it have to do with lawsuits?  Is he abruptly switching to a new topic?  But he immediately (v. 12) returns to the subject of what is lawful, so somehow the list of sins must be part of his argument against lawsuits among believers.  The list includes sexual sins, sins regarding property, and idolatry.  It may be that the last offense on the list brings us back to Paul’s topic:  swindlers.  He has just accused those bringing lawsuits of wronging and defrauding others.  In their self-justification of why, in their case, it was permissible to sue another believer, they didn’t see themselves as sinning.  They certainly were not as bad as the sinners Paul describes in his list.  But when he mentions swindlers, those who take unfair advantage of others, that may be the connection with those who “wrong and defraud” others.  Their sinful lawsuits are just as bad as the other sins in Paul’s list.

Even though the Corinthians had committed the other sins in that list (v. 11a), the grace of God through Christ by the Spirit had washed and sanctified and justified them.  Their transformed hearts should no longer be dominated by the desire for their own kingdom (money, power, reputation) built by defeating others in court.  Their desire for God’s kingdom had turned them from all the other sins in Paul’s list.  That desire should also overcome the passion to be proved right, to win at any cost, to put others in their place – all by means of lawsuits.

Paul suggests that those goals – being proved right, etc. – are not the highest value.  They may be “lawful” in the legal system, but he offers two warnings about even lawful pursuits.  First, the lawful may not be “profitable” or fruitful.  Being proved right, winning the case may be a hollow victory when it does not produce the fruit of Christian relationships.  Second, what is lawful should not be the controlling factor in a Christian’s life, something that “masters” him.  The drive to win, the craving to be shown to be right in every situation, the desire to protect one’s status – all these can become prideful addictions that cloud judgment and produce a willingness to sin against others.  Those two criteria – seeking fruitful relationships and avoiding prideful compulsions – must be considered even in lawful situations.

PostScript

One of the detours in our discussion involved Paul’s strong admonition relating to sin within the church:  “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Corinthians 5:13, quoted from Deuteronomy 17:7).  One comment from our group suggested that this verse included the meaning that we should remove wicked thoughts from our own hearts.  But is that what Paul was thinking when he wrote to a church where a particular member was involved in sin beyond even Gentile standards?  Or did the Apostle mean exactly what he said?

I suggest this is an example of what might be called “true but inaccurate interpretation.”  Certainly the idea that we should remove wicked thoughts from our hearts is true.  It just is not what Paul is saying in this text.  There are likely plenty of other passages in Scripture that clearly and directly tell us about the importance of our own clean hearts (Psalm 51 comes to mind for a starting point).  Trying to read that idea into a passage where it was not intended is unnecessary.

Reading “deeper” or “spiritual” meanings into the text also poses a subtle danger.  We can become so enamored by such “hidden” meanings that we miss (or ignore) the obvious meaning of the text.  Looking for hidden meanings can become more important than simply studying the text to see exactly what the original writer meant and what the original hearers understood.  Methodical Bible study (Observation, Interpretation, Application) is intended (and is very effective) in understanding and applying God’s inspired word to our lives.

Certainly the Bible includes many passages what have symbolic or figurative language, and those portions, like all of Scripture, should be interpreted as the writer intended under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Parables, visions, prophecies, and other literary genres must be understood as they were intended – symbols and images and metaphors.  Straightforward narrative or teaching passages should be interpreted as they were intended, telling a historical story or explaining doctrine or providing practical guidance for Christian living.

Often the difficulty in recognizing (and challenging) true but inaccurate interpretation is the fact that they are true.  Disagreeing with the erroneous interpretation can appear to be disagreeing with the truth expressed by the inaccurate interpretation of the passage:  “although the lessons drawn from [the passage] frequently are true because they are based on a general awareness of the Biblical message, they have no organic relation to the historical narrative [or teaching or practical guidance – MW] being explained.”[1]  In the interest of true and accurate understanding of the doctrines and practices of God’s self-revelation to us, we must avoid all distortions of what Scripture says, even those that express truth found elsewhere in the Bible.

[1] Robert A. Traina, Methodical Bible Study (Wilmore, Kentucky:  Asbury Theological Seminary, 1952), 172.  This is Traina’s comment about “Erroneous Kinds of Interpretation” in the category of Allegorical Interpretation, but his description is equally applicable to ‘true but inaccurate’ interpretation.  Traina’s book is one of the most detailed and exhaustive of those I have found on inductive study.