1 CORINTHIANS 5
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that [those who were of] the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
When Paul advised the expulsion of the fornicator from the midst of the Corinthian ecclesia, and gave as a reason
"that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"
he employed an ellipsis of speech having this meaning-that those who were of the Spirit might not be imperilled by the presence of those who were of the flesh, but might attain to the salvation for which they were labouring.
You will observe this by the whole tenor of the context, the pith of which lies in the question (verse 6, 7),
"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."
TC 06/1898
Satan
Satan is not "merely a name for sin in the flesh." Its meaning is adversary, as is known to every scripturally-informed person; and, therefore, its application is as various as the forms of adversaryship.
Sometimes it is used of an angel (Num. 22:32, as in the word withstand-Heb. to be an adversary-a Satan); sometimes of God (compare 2 Sam. 24:1, and 1 Chron. 21:1); sometimes of man, as in the case of Peter (Matt. 16:23); and the Governments of the world (Rev. 20:1-2).
Your question, therefore, as to 1 Cor. 5:5 ("deliver such an one over to Satan") is based upon a misconception. Paul did not mean handing him over to "sin in the flesh," which would be an absurdity; but handing him over to the enemy outside-that is,
"put away from yourselves that wicked person" (verse 13).
TC 06/1898
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
The Sacrifice of Christ: substitutional punishment to appease Divine wrath? Or, dreadful, purposeless torture for a mere empty "ritual" and symbol?
OR -- the essential, ultimate self-perfecting of holiness and beauty and victory? -- the God-created, God-taught, God-strengthened Son "learning obedience through the things that he suffered"; and achieving -- in the fullness of faith and love -- the supreme perfection of manhood, that he may absorb all mankind into himself, and into his own perfect victory?
How marvelously brethren Thomas and Roberts have pointed out to us that it is this latter! Be humble, and be thankful. Those who cast aside an intelligent appreciation and respect for the work these brethren did under God's hand, soon lose the depth and beauty of the Truth.
Do not let them deceive you.
We cannot have peace with God if we are deliberately not having peace with man.
Bro Growcott
Christ our passover
"For the love of Christ constraineth us", says Paul, "because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live into themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again" (2 Cor. 5 : 14-15).
He died for us, therefore we should live for him - that is the simple logic of our position. But we can only live for him by also feeding on him. He is our Passover lamb: as Israel had to eat the entire flesh and assimilate it fully into themselves, so must we eat him and make him part of Our very being (John 6 : 51-57)· And in measure as we do that, we shall realize the moral obligations of the Passover ritual in sinlessness of life, purging out the old leaven of our past life that we may be a new lump as, by status, we indeed are.
... As Christ was greater than the Temple because he was the embodiment of the moral concept for which it stood, so have we ourselves to be in fact (as well as in theory) "the temple of God" (1. Cor. 3 : 16). "For ye are the temple of God ; as God hath said", states Paul. And on what authority? On that of the Law, even though, as a Law, it has been abrogated.
"I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (2 Cor. 6 : 16): Such were God's words for Israel. But they are equally words for us, for we too, as Israel were, are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people". And we are this for the same great purpose as were Israel -"that we should show forth the praises of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2 : 9).
The symbolism of the Law lays upon us the same moral obligations as it laid upon Israel, precisely because it realized itself so completely in him of whom we now form part.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away'; behold all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5 : 17)·
Let us see to it that this is true of us, by giving ourselves wholly to God's service; loving Him with all our heart, and soul, and might; surrendering to Him the fat and strongest portion of our lives; living by every word that proceedeth out of His mouth; yielding ourselves to the influence of His Spirit; doing all things, however menial, as unto Him and solely to His glory.
Then, in His mercy, when that day comes when the earth shall be full of His glory, and when even upon the bells of the horses shall be "Holiness to the Lord", He will be pleased to dwell in us and admit us into perfect and eternal fellowship with Him and with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, our Saviour and our King.
"Now unto him that is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen."
Law and Grace Ch 13
Christ celebrated the passover with his disciples: in this he held up Moses and the firstborn to our view: for the passover had no meaning apart from the Lord passing over the blood-sprinkled houses of the Israelites in Egypt on the night that he went through the land and destroyed the firstborn in every house in Egypt.
Christ said the passover would be "fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16) which implies the typical nature of the passover feast, in harmony with Paul's teaching that Christ is our passover, sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). Thus, Christ in the kingdom and Christ on the cross unite with Moses in Egypt on the night of the exodus--which may enable us to understand why the final song of salvation is "the song of Moses and of the Lamb" (Rev. 15:3).
Law of Moses Ch 21
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
The Christadelphian Ecclesia is engaged in the work of making ready a people prepared for the Lord, and having a glorious Hope based on great and precious promises, she will purify herself by "purging out the old leaven of malice and wickedness, and keep the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Her work is not a work of ignorance, idleness and indifference, which says "Christ fellowshipped Judas," "Let the tares and wheat grow together," "Every one must give an account for himself," "I have nothing to do with what another says or does," "Let us have peace," "You must not judge," &c.
And this, the Ecclesia, or Body of Christ the pillar and ground of the Truth, and the Temple of God in which His Spirit dwells!!
The Christadelphian, April 1887
Christ celebrated the passover with his disciples: in this he held up Moses and the firstborn to our view: for the passover had no meaning apart from the Lord passing over the blood-sprinkled houses of the Israelites in Egypt on the night that he went through the land and destroyed the firstborn in every house in Egypt.
Christ said the passover would be "fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16) which implies the typical nature of the passover feast, in harmony with Paul's teaching that Christ is our passover, sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). Thus, Christ in the kingdom and Christ on the cross unite with Moses in Egypt on the night of the exodus--which may enable us to understand why the final song of salvation is "the song of Moses and of the Lamb" (Rev. 15:3).
Law of Moses Ch 24
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
THERE is a limitation here of some importance as guarding against the extremes to which the separations and sanctities of the truth are liable to be driven. As a rule, there is very little danger of such extremes. The danger is all the other way. The liability is for believers of the truth to fail to realise that they are "not of this world," but are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people"—whose zeal and activity God requires to be in directions in harmony with His will concerning them.
Because of this liability, there has been a necessity to keep well and constantly in the foreground the fact that "coming out from among" the world, the part and duty of believers is to "be separate," that God may receive them.
I have sometimes feared that the constant insistence on this truth might lead to extremes. In this fear, so far as I have had to do with the work, I have always endeavoured to put forward the qualifying fact—(for which, however, there did not seem particular need)—that the occupations of the present life were all of them legitimate and important in their own place when subordinated to that policy of life in which God is supreme.
But extremes have arisen, notwithstanding, whether as the needless scruples of a hyper-developed conscience, or the cavils of a restless animosity that easily employs the argument of extra holiness if it happen to answer.
The Corinthian brethren had evidently put too narrow a construction on some things that Paul had said in a previous letter, which has not been preserved. They were apparently under the impression that Paul meant they were to have no business relations with unbelievers, or association with them in any way. Paul's answer is "not altogether," for in that case, we must "go out of the world," which is not the idea of the gospel at all.
It is the ascetic idea which has found expression in monasteries and nunneries, and other so-called "religious" seclusions, but has received no sanction from Jesus, who expressly excluded such an idea when he said in his prayer (Jno. 17:15),
"I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil."
While "coming out of the world," so far as the objects and principles of life are concerned, we are to remain in it so far as association with it is not incompatible with those objects and principles. And this remaining in it involves many forms of co-operation and partnership that will not distress the godliest mind when the line of demarcation is clearly discerned. The demarcation may be indicated thus:
—It is not unlawful to combine with the world in efforts to obtain or produce the means of convenient life, whether in the shape of articles of use and comfort, or the money representing those articles; but it is unlawful to combine with the world in the purposes for which the world employs those articles when produced or obtained.
It only requires a moment's consideration to see in how many ways, in the complex life of modern times, we have to combine with the world in efforts to obtain or produce the means of convenient life. Every one who fills a situation, or accepts employment in the commonest forms of labour, enters into this combination with the world. The master pays the man for his labour because the man's labour produces what the master requires, and without which the master could not realise his objects, whatever they may be.
It is a combination—a co-operation—between master and man, the one finding money, the other skill; and the one consenting to exchange the skill for the money. The money received by the labourer is the man's "share." His labour enables the master to get other money, which, perhaps, the master will use godlessly, but the labourer does not sin in enabling the godless master to get the money so used; because it is a lawful contract, limited to an exchange of values as between master and man.
Their contract is not as to how the money is to be used after it is made by their joint cooperation (this would make the labourer a responsible partaker in whatever sinful use the money might be put to): the contract is strictly limited to the production and exchange of financial values: and this is legitimate.
Suppose, instead of labour, the man gave money, it would be equally unobjectionable. If there were any difference, the difference would be against the labourer, and not against the investor of money; for the man who places money at the service of an industrial combination at least leaves himself at liberty to place his time and strength at the disposal of higher claims, whereas the labourer has no such liberty, but places himself at the command of the master to whom for the time being he sells himself.
The money contract would only differ in form. You place money to earn money instead of labour to earn money, and this is lawful if not done unrighteously. A contract stopping at finance contravenes no principle of godliness. It only does so if it go beyond the finance and embrace the objects to which the finance is to be applied, if those objects are inconsistent with godliness.
The Christadelphian, Dec 1888
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
He offers us an opportunity to work and live and commune with Him throughout eternity. All He wants is our full appreciation and wholehearted acceptance of the offer. He simply asks us to choose between Him and the world upon every occasion when the choice is before us, not as a matter of self-denial but of enlightened love and true preference.
The fundamental requirement is that we must want to serve Him, whenever and however we can. We must desire Him above all things through a fully developed recognition of His infinite desirability. We all desire many things. Why? In many cases we could not give the reasons. We say they are natural desires. We desire things because we think, or feel that they are desirable; that they will satisfy certain longings within us.
God has assured us that in Him all desires find their ultimate and permanent fulfillment. The purpose of life and the Scriptures is to bring a full realization and conviction of that fact to the minds of those whom God has loved and chosen.
There were many serious offenses among the Corinthians, things difficult to conceive of among brethren; but these very searching letters were written while the ecclesias were in the earliest formative stages. It had not been long since they had first heard the glorious news Paul brought and had come in out of the dark Gentile night. They had so many things to learn to make them spiritually-minded and acceptable children of God.
We marvel at the tremendous labour Paul undertook to form holy ecclesias of God out of the shapeless clay of Gentile ignorance and corruption. We get occasional glimpses of the material from which he drew. "Such were some of you," he says, after cataloguing the deepest vices, "but ye are washed, sanctified and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus." Firmly and patiently he corrects them and molds them together into the body of Christ, always holding before them the highest ideals of holiness and perfection.
Bro Growcott - Self examination
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Answers to Correspondents 1 Cor. v. 13. ("Them that are without, God judgeth.")
This, which you quote, is in the present tense; hence, the point of the argument is that we are not called upon to decide on the doings of those outside the household, but are called upon to judge inside, to the point of putting away from among ourselves a wicked person. Judgment in this passage has reference not to a future judgment-for Christ alone will judge His household-but to a present course of action towards our brothers and sisters. As to those outside and how they should be treated if they do wickedly, it does not concern us. That is for God, the Judge of all the earth, to decide. Therefore, I consider this passage does not prove the resurrection to judgment of those outside."
Answer.-There is no exception to be taken to these excellent remarks in the main. They clearly elucidate the bearing of Paul's discrimination between those "within" and those "without" in the matter of ecclesial judgment. An ecclesia is responsible for wickedness within, but not for wickedness without. True and good; but the question at issue is, Does God ignore the wickedness "without?" Does He judge or not judge "them that are without?" The passage answers this directly in the affirmative.
The only question not directly touched on by the passage is, When? The tense of the verb settles nothing, for it is indefinite-past, present, or future. But it is not indefinite in Rom iii. 6. "How shall God judge the world?" This is future. And then there is the great body of Bible teaching already adduced that God has appointed a day for judgment, and does not judge the wicked now, except in the providential and national sense in which He judges Israel now, a sense which does not (as all admit in the case of Israel) exclude the judgment waiting at the appearing of Christ.
It was the doctrine of Eliphaz and his companions that God judges the wicked now (Job iv. 7-9 ; viii. 6-13 ; xv. 20, 24). It was the doctrine of Job that God did not judge the wicked now, but gave the earth into their hands, in safety and power, and reserved them to the day of wrath as "those that rebel against the light" (Job xxiv. 13; ix. 24; xxi. 7, 15, 26, 30). God condemned the doctrine of Eliphaz, and endorsed the doctrine of Job (xlii. 7). This is conclusive of the question of when "God judgeth those that are without."
The Christadelphian, July 1894. p274