Day 221 – Day 221
1 Corinthians 5.1-13
Ok people – keep calm and let’s work through this passage!
Paul has heard that the church at Corinth not only tolerates, but boasts about a man within the fellowship that
‘sleeps with his father’s wife’. This is technically a case of incest, but is perhaps not as starkly defined as appears in
our text. Using scripture as the best commentary on Scripture we can assume two things; ‘his father’s wife’ is his
step-mother, not is mother; and ‘sleeping with’, in the original, suggests a permanent arrangement, perhaps even
marriage.. So the phrase ‘sleeping with his father’s wife’ is perhaps more accurately to be heard as ‘has married his
step mother and is having sex with her’. So there is here, in terms of the day, a question of ethics, purity, social
cohesion and morality, but – in purely physical terms in our understanding – there is no genetic link between male
and female in this case. Perhaps for some of us, that serves to reduce the horror of these verses, but clearly in the
context into which Paul writes there is immense offence.
The relevant issue for us may be discipline and expectation in the church in more general terms, rather than the
issue of the specific case cited. The issue of sexual ethics has of course been in the forefront of ecclesiastical and
social debate for some time now. As sexual attitudes and norms change in society around the church, those within
the Body of Christ have to wrestle with the issues as they relate to us. Just because a practice or pattern has become
accepted in society at large does not necessarily mean that it should be welcomed in the life of the church. However,
the converse is also true; just because a particular practice or pattern has not previously been accepted within the
fellowship, does not necessarily mean that our position has been without flaw in the past! Perhaps there are times
when changing social and sexual patterns within society should rightly be welcomed into the fellowship of the
church. This is a conundrum for us – as it was the first century church - and despite what some would have us
believe, the Bible is actually virtually silent on most aspects of sexual morality and conduct. It does speak out
strongly against sexual exploitation and abuse; it does condemn relationships that are sexually violent; it does make
a stand against permissiveness in all its form; and it does say that sexual sin is ‘sin’ just as serious as every other kind
of sin and that Christians should not be content to live in sin. Defining ‘sin’ has though become the key element in
the development of a sexual ethic for today’s Church – and that is not proving a straightforward definition on which
to settle.
In the context of today’s reading however, there are one or two interesting principles. It seems that – having decided
that the conduct of the man is sinful – the church has refused to take any action against the man even though he is
content to live in that sin. If this error was a one-off mistake, repented of and forgiven, then I guess Paul’s words
would be very different. But he has assumed a permanent life-style that Paul says is contrary to God’s will. He should
therefore, says Paul, be put outside of the fellowship (excommunicated).
The other interesting principle established by silence is that the woman here is not judged. We can assume therefore
that she was NOT part of the fellowship; a non-Christian. Paul says ‘what business of mine is it to judge those outside
the church?’ (5.12). What right does the church actually have to impose our belief system and principles on those
who choose to live outside of the church. None – I would suggest!
This is a difficult passage, with one or two very helpful principles at its heart. However, if you are looking for a
developed sexual ethic for the Christian church in our times, this passage alone does not provide it.