A Little Leaven - Discipline in the Kingdom of God

Discipline in the kingdom of God is a topic that is not very popular and understandably so.  However, it is a topic that is woefully under taught and/or underutilized.  Too often, Christians overlook for many years, or perhaps forever, the sin in a brother or sister’s life and view it as “compassion” or “mercy” to do so.  Frequently, John 8:1-11 (or other correlating Gospel accounts) is misapplied to establish this very shaky perspective, and mostly because Christians find “church discipline” to be distasteful.  The question becomes, then, is it true “mercy” and “compassion” to be “longsuffering” with a brother or sister living in sin, or is it actually doing them spiritual harm?

As Solomon stated in the book of Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).  The perspective that Christians take today is the same perspective that some first-century Christians took and were reprimanded by the Apostles for.  Throughout the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul continually reprimands the pride that he saw in the brethren there.  Matters of church discipline were no different, as can be seen by an examination of 1 Corinthians 5.  In this section of the letter, Paul deals with at least three interconnected concepts: 1.) fornication must be dealt with; 2.) the reasons that sin must be dealt with; and 3.) the differences between sin in the world and sin in the church.  In this manner, Paul teaches us about the concept of “withdraw,” the purposes of it, the proper application of it, and how to live righteously in a wicked world. 

The Feast of Unleavened Bread

Throughout his discussion of disciplining an erring brother or sister, Paul refers to the Old Testament Feast of Unleavened Bread.  In order to fully understand his teachings on withdraw, we must first understand the references that he makes to this feast. 

Under the Old Law, the Israelites were to conduct a feast that commemorated the departure of the Israelites from Egypt through the providence of God (Exodus 12:17).  This feast was intended to be observed by the Israelites from the 14^th day of the first month of the Jewish year (the month of Abib as instituted by God in Exodus 13:4) until the 21^st (Exodus 12:18).  For the duration of this feast, the Israelites were not to eat any leavened bread and should an individual do so, they were to be cut off from the camp of Israel (Exodus 12:15).  Additionally, leaven was not even allowed to be in their homes during the time of the feast (Exodus 12:19-20).  This feast was of great importance under the Old Law and was intended to be taught and passed down to future generations (Exodus 13:8-10).

Here are some comparisons to make as we study through 1 Corinthians 5:

i)     The Israelites were delivered from Egypt by God

(a)  Christians are delivered from sin by Christ

(b) Note also the similarities not only in our deliverance, but also in the fact that we are to use unleavened bread for the Lord’s Supper

ii)    The Israelites were brought out and made separate from the Egyptians (and all other Gentiles)

(a)  Christians are brought out and made separate from the world, albeit in a spiritual sense rather than physically

iii)   The Israelites were to cast out or reject an individual who partook of leavened bread during the feast

(a)  That meant that they could have no interaction with that person

(b) Leaven was against God’s law during the period of the feast and was therefore a sin

1.    For Christians, sin separates us from both God and our brethren

2.    We are to cast out or reject an individual who partakes in the leaven (sin)

Leaven in the Church – 1 Corinthians 5:1

In the first few verses of chapter 5, we learn that some had reported the “leaven” in the church in Corinth to Paul.  There was fornication in the church; a Christian brother had his father’s wife! Paul almost immediately makes a comparison for the Corinthians in that he says that such sin is not even known among the Gentiles.  Now, it is important to note that Paul is not talking about literal Gentiles (meaning those of non-Jewish birth) since the congregation at Corinth was composed of more than just Jewish brethren.  Rather, Paul is saying that the Corinthians were Christians and that made them God’s chosen people as the Israelites had once been.  In this manner, Paul is likening the Corinthian brethren to the Israelites and non-Christians to the Gentiles. 

There are many assumptions concerning the father of this erring brother; it is possible and even probable that the woman in question was the father’s second wife and thus a “step-mother” to the erring brother.  Some suppose that the father was a Christian at the Corinthian congregation, but it seems unlikely that he would be ok with his son having his wife.  Some also propagate that the father was dead and that this son had married the woman, but the text says that the son had his father’s wife using present tense language.  While there was overwhelming debauchery in Corinth, Paul says that such sin was not even noted among those outside of the body of Christ, and so many of the presented suppositions are but attempts at justification for the man’s sinful activities. 

The Pride of the Church – 1 Corinthians 5:2-3

Once again, this issue was a matter of pride for the Corinthian brethren.  They were puffed up in their “longsuffering” concerning this erring brother (the language of the text makes it seem that the woman involved was not a Christian, but that is not a known fact).  Rather than being puffed up, Paul informs them that they ought to have mourned because, like the Israelites who had to cast someone from their midst, they needed to have dealt with the matter properly. 

While many today claim that we are not to judge someone as being in sin, Paul does so while not even being present.  Paul could easily see that this activity was nothing but sin and had judged not only the erring brother, but the congregation for not having dealt with it appropriately.  Although we must be careful concerning church autonomy, this should teach modern Christians that even if a congregation does not properly deal with an erring brother or sister, we are not to treat that brother or sister as though nothing is wrong.

Commanded to Deal with the Problem – 1 Corinthians 5:4-5

Now that the problem had been made known, Paul had judged both the one in error and the congregation, he now commanded the Corinthians to deal appropriately with the sin.  He commands (note that this is a command and not a suggestion) them that when they are gathered together they are to “deliver such a one to Satan” (NKJV).  The verbiage expresses two things to the reader; 1.) all unrepented of sins were to be addressed in like manner (“…such a one…”); and 2.) that this was to be a unanimous congregational act. 

Justifiably, many people are confused or at least question what Paul means by “for the destruction of the flesh” and “that his spirit may be saved” in this passage, and so it is appropriate to address this as well.  Throughout the New Testament, and especially in the writings of the Apostle Paul, sin is referred to as being carnal or fleshly (Galatians 5:16-21; 1 John 2:15-17), and so Paul is talking about destroying the sin and the desire for it.  However, is this man’s soul to be saved in spite of his unwillingness to repent? Absolutely not; Paul is holding out hope that the individual in sin will repent, will put to death the sin in his life, and that through this manner of church discipline his soul will be saved. 

Glorying is Not Good

Application of the Feast of Unleavened Bread – 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

Paul warns the Corinthians that their glorying is not good in this matter because they should not have been puffed up in their tolerance of sin.  This seems to be an issue just as much today as it was in the first-century; too many today are “longsuffering” when it comes to sin to the point that sin is often NEVER addressed!

So what is the application of the Feast of Unleavened Bread? Paul tells them that a little leaven leavens the whole lump; leaven cannot affect only a small part of the bread in which it resides.  If there was even a little leaven, the bread of the Israelites was no longer unleavened.  Likewise, the Corinthian congregation could not tolerate a little sin (leaven) in the church and remain pure (unleavened).   The old leaven had to be purged out, become once again unleavened, and thus keep the feast in purity. 

The Difference Between Jews and Christians – 1 Corinthians 5:9-10

As with any analogy, this breaks down if you take it too far.  However, Paul notes and deals with the “break down” of his analogy within the text by noting that the kingdom of Israel was a physical, earthly kingdom, but the kingdom of God is of a spiritual nature.  The Israelites were brought out physically from the Egyptians and were to remain separate from other nations, but Christians are brought out spiritually and must still participate with the people in the world around them.  As part of a spiritual kingdom, Christians are still expected by God to interact in a limited way with the world through business interactions, going to school, work, etc.  Additionally, we are to interact with the world in order to spread the gospel and convert more people in order to expand the borders of the kingdom, which is something the Israelites were not expected to do.  Paul notes these differences and tells the Corinthians that there is a difference between rejecting evil from among them (such as the erring brother) and not keeping company with the wicked of the world; to not keep company with the wicked of the world at all, we would have to go out of the world completely.

The Meaning of Withdraw – 1 Corinthians 5:11-13

Paul wrote concerning this erring brother, but makes a distinction between those who are outside of Christ and those inside the kingdom.  Anyone named a brother who is involved in sin and does not repent is to be withdrawn from.  It is even commanded that such a one is not to even been eaten with.  There are two possible applications of this principle of not eating with an erring brother, but they both end up at the same point; 1.) Paul is either talking about a social mean and we are not to eat with them socially; or 2.) Paul is talking about partaking of the Lord’s Supper and we are not to eat that with such a person.  Consider it this way: If Paul is referring to a social meal, then why would we think it to be acceptable to partake of the Lord’s Supper with such a one if we aren’t even allowed to eat with them socially? Isn’t the Lord’s Supper meant to commemorate the death of Christ and isn’t it meant to be a communion with one another and with Christ? And if Paul is referring to the Lord’s Supper, then why would we assume that it is both acceptable and appropriate to socialize with such a one?

If someone partook of leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, they were to be put out of and cut off from the camp of the Israelites.  Could anyone socialize or eat the Feast of Unleavened Bread with such a one? Paul commands that we are to put away from among ourselves the evil person and in this he refers yet again to the Old Testament Law.  Under the Old Law, “put away an evil person” most often meant the physical death of the trespasser.  Consider these passages: Deuteronomy 13:5; 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21; and 24:7.  In every one of these instances, God commands that the offender be put to death, which should make us wonder why Paul quotes this term when dealing with the concept of withdraw.

 Under the New Testament law, we are obviously not a physical kingdom and we are not commanded to physically put to death any offender of God’s commands.  However, we are to cut them off from among us as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 5 and we are to deliver them to a spiritual death (1 Corinthians 5:5).  Can we continue to worship next to someone and in communion with someone who does such evil? Remember, the Israelites were to remove the leaven COMPLETELY from their house and NOT keep it until the feast was over.  Thus, Paul is telling us that we are to cut off an unrepentant brother or sister and they are to be as dead to us unless they repent of their sin.

Conclusion

Often, Christians are proud of their “longsuffering” concerning those that need to be withdrawn from and claim that they are simply showing “compassion” and “mercy.”  While we obviously need to be careful in our approach and realize that people do struggle with certain kinds of sins, we also need to realize those that simply refuse to repent and adjust their lives to fit God’s will.  We are not showing compassion by allowing someone to live in sin without acknowledging it and dealing with it according to the Scriptures.

We also need to realize that God’s methods work much better than ours and that they always work.  Too many times, we see Christians that will not uphold “withdraw” because they claim that it either does not work or that they have seen “withdraw” abused.  What would have happened in Israel if an individual decided not to uphold the casting out of an individual who disobeyed God? They would have been cast out as well, and there is a very practical application to be made for us as Christians; if we do not uphold the withdraw of an individual, then we are to be withdrawn from ourselves.  This concept is discussed by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15; in the context, Paul is again talking about withdraw, and then he commands that those who refuse to commit to the withdraw are to be withdrawn from as well.

Often we assume that the main purpose of withdraw is the restore the erring soul, and of course that should always be our hope.  However, that is not the main purpose of withdraw! Will withdraw always restore an erring soul? Unfortunately, no it does not.  Does that mean that “withdraw” has failed? No, it does not mean that it has failed.  God’s method always works; if the person in sin repents, then they are saved and the purity of the church is maintained.  If the person refuses to repent, then they are removed from the church and the purity of the church is thus maintained.  As Paul notes so often throughout this section of the first Corinthian letter, we are to remain unleavened and this is vital to our salvation! 

Zeal for Your House Has Eaten Me Up

"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” (John 2:13-17)

Jesus physically drove the wickedness from the house of the Lord with a whip that He personally made (which indicates that this was not an immediate reaction, but a calm and deliberate reaction to wickedness).

How many of us would be willing to drive the wickedness from the house of the Lord? Or are we so caught up in the "niceness" of this politically correct era that we would simply ask it politely to leave? Or worse yet, tolerate it as though we are something special as the Corinthians thought in 1 Corinthians 5.

Often, there are Christians who condemn other Christians for taking a stand against evil and claim that they are too harsh, thereby judging that brother or sister as being "unloving" or "judgmental" (which is the epitome of irony). Are they the "troubler of Israel?" (1 Kings 18:17-18)

Perhaps more should be concerned about offering the full council of God and worry less about whether or not something is phrased "nicely" enough (note: you will NEVER be "nice" enough to someone living in sin who doesn't want to give it up). Perhaps we should be more like Jeremiah:

"For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, “Violence and plunder!”
Because the word of the Lord was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, “I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.”
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not." (Jeremiah 20:8-9)

"It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise
Than for a man to hear the song of fools." (Ecclesiastes 7:5)

"As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." (Galatians 1:9-10)

"But Lord, I am the EXCEPTION to Your Rule!"

Recently, there was an article circulating around Facebook concerning how many parents accept the diagnosis of their children as having ADHD and are allowing “medical professionals” to drug their children in order to subdue them.  The article condemned this practice and a few Christians had reposted it with additional comments concerning the discipline of our children in accordance with God’s will being the cure.  In one instance, a comment was made that essentially said that the commenter sort of agreed with the poster’s remarks concerning discipline, but that HER children were the EXCEPTION to the rule and that they HAD to have drugs to subdue their “ADHD.”

Now, this brief article is not meant to address that particular occurrence only, but rather to address an overall attitude that is found not only in the world, but in the Lord’s church as well; the attitude that we are somehow the exception to the rule, and therefore the rule does not apply to us.  Oftentimes, even Christians act as though God simply was not smart enough nor experienced enough to have foreseen their particular circumstances in this life, and they therefore decide that God’s laws or commandments do not apply to them…and the rest of Christendom just couldn’t possibly understand their circumstances because they are so “unique.”

Consider a few instances in which many Christians claim to be the “exception” to the rule (this is a brief list…there are many more); Christians are commanded not to forsake the assembly (Hebrews 10:24-25), but many respond with “but I HAVE to work…therefore my forsaking is the exception”; Christians are told to avoid evil companions because they corrupt good morals (1 Corinthians 15:33), but many respond that they are the ones who are STRONG enough to be around such people and not be harmed; Christ commanded that we do our good works for the proper reasons and not to do them before men, but many Christians write about their “good deeds” on Facebook and claim that they are simply doing it to be a “good example” to others or to raise some sort of awareness; Christians are commanded to enact discipline in the church (1 Cor. 5, Titus 3:9-10, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, etc), but many Christians claim that God’s method will not work with their loved one and therefore it doesn’t apply; mankind is given the concept of raising their child in the correct manner and they will continue in it (Proverbs 22:6, Proverbs 22:15), but Christians often claim to be the exception to such Proverbs because their children are “different” or they as parents did do everything “correct” and their child still went bad.  This is just a brief list of areas in which Christians claim to be the “exception” to the rule.

In Christianity, many have the particularly bad habit of turning the “exception” into the “rule,” rather than living by the rule.  For instance, there are a great many debates concerning what the Bible teaches on the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and most false doctrines on this topic stem from making the exception the rule.  We as Christians often spend so much time trying to fit our loved ones into the “exception” so that they can be Scripturally remarried that we forget what God’s rule is: NO DIVORCE.  In fact, we forget what is written in Malachi 2:16, “For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence…”  Simply attempting to manipulate details in order to fit a loved one into the “exception” does not mean that God will accept someone into Heaven because WE claim they are the exception.

Think of it this way for a moment: if EVERYONE is the exception to the rule, then to whom does the rule actually apply? For instance, if everyone has a “legitimate reason” for forsaking the assembly of the saints, then to whom is the Hebrew writer saying this? We often “think it through logically” and say that we are free to miss for our jobs because we have to work (2 Thessalonians 3:10).  However, where are we actually given the positive Bible authority to forsake for our jobs or school? In fact, Jesus tells us not to worry about our livelihood because God knows that we need such things to survive (Matthew 6:25-34) and we are given examples where followers of Christ actually left their employment immediately to be servants (Matthew 9:9, 4:18-22).  Are we “legitimately excused” from the worship of God for such reasons or are we attempting to make a man-made exception the rule? Think about the time period in which the book of Hebrews was written; many first-century Christians had been murdered because they would not forsake their belief in Christ…God expected them to be faithful to the assembly under such circumstances, so will He excuse us because our jobs keep us from meeting with the saints?

No matter how much many of us might think so, we are not unique and we do not face circumstances that nobody has ever faced before.  American society has taught us to have the “me first” mentality and has also taught us to attempt to outdo one another in how “hard” our lives or our circumstances are.  Therefore, we often use social forums such as Facebook to express to others just how hard our lives are and how they simply cannot understand our circumstances in life.  Some may even point to how the Apostle Paul wrote concerning the things that he endured and “boasted” of them to the Corinthians…but they have missed the point.  Paul does indeed “boast” concerning the afflictions in his life, but he does so as an answer to false apostles who had the same problem many Christians have today (2 Corinthians 11:1-30).  False apostles (Paul’s words – 11:13) were bragging about their so-called suffering and claiming that they were true apostles as well, but Paul says that they were deceitful workers. If we look at our lives, do they compare to the suffering of the Apostle Paul? Are our circumstances as difficult as his often were? If Paul were here today, would we tell him that he simply was not experienced enough to judge our circumstances?

Even though we often think that God doesn’t understand us or our circumstances, we are wrong.  Even though we often believe that we know a better way (this is usually the case with church discipline…we think we know a better way than God), we do not.  Consider Isaiah 55:8-9: “’For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord.  ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” God is ALWAYS right and God does understand our circumstances better than we do.  We are not the exception to God’s rules no matter how much we might wish that we were, but rather we need to stop thinking of ourselves more than we ought to think and accept God’s will for us as it is.  If Paul, with all the wonderful things (Acts 19:11) he did and all the afflictions he suffered (2 Corinthians 11), counted himself as nothing but a servant to God (1 Corinthians 3:5-15), then why do we seek to make something of ourselves? Why do we seek to be more important or “unique”?

We are but laborers in God’s field and we need to view ourselves as such and nothing more.  We are not the exception, but rather we need to be the epitome of the rule.  We live our lives in service to the Lord and yet all we have done is what is our duty to do (Luke 17:6-10, Romans 12:1-3).  We ought not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think (Romans 12:3), for we are but unprofitable servants of the Lord (Luke 17:10).  

We Can Do It Better Than God

We are surrounded by many today that have “good intentions” in their service to the Lord.  They seek out more “efficient” methods of completing the commands of God, but in doing so they neglect to also seek out the Bible authority for their methods.  Mankind, it seems, is stuck on the concept that they know how to accomplish the will of the Lord (evangelizing, benevolence, etc) better than the Lord.  To further clarify, man seems to think that their own methods are much more efficient than the methods set forth in the New Testament by the Lord.  Why didn’t God just ask us how to get things done correctly?

It is out of this false sense of self-importance that concepts such as institutionalism spring forth (there are many other false doctrines that can be utilized to express this point as well).  God’s method of benevolence just simply isn’t efficient enough, so let’s create an organization between the church and its members to take care of ALL the needy.  God’s method of evangelizing the world isn’t efficient enough either, so let’s create an institution or organization to take care of that as well.  God’s method of the older teaching the younger isn’t efficient either, so we’ll go ahead and create some manmade method of accomplishing this as well.  As you can see, God really should have asked us before commanding how these things ought to be done because we know better than God.  But, since we have good intentions and the ends justify the means, God will accept it in the end (and perhaps praise us for knowing more than He does about how the world works and how people will respond).

 
What about King David and Uzzah? In 2 Samuel 6, David decides that the Ark of the Covenant will be transported from Baale Judah on a cart rather than carried by the polls that were designed for this purpose (2 Samuel 6:1-5; Exodus 25:10-15).  Well, this makes sense, doesn’t it? Isn’t it a more “efficient” method of transporting the Ark? The Levites HAD to get tired from carrying around the Ark by those polls, so why wouldn’t a cart be a more efficient method of completing the command of the Lord?

…then the oxen stumbled (2 Samuel 6:6).  Uzzah, with his good intentions (and there is no reason to doubt that Uzzah had good intentions), reaches out to steady the Ark so that it doesn’t fall off of the cart.  God, who by this point realized that using a cart IS a more efficient method of doing His will, accepts Uzzah’s decision to touch the Ark because of his good intentions.

Obviously not! In 2 Samuel 6:7, the Lord becomes angry with Uzzah for touching the Ark and strikes him down. 

Rather than telling God that we know better than He does how to accomplish His will, we should actually DO His will! When you hear, "I don't need to show my authority for doing x, y, and z because they are 'good works,'" beware. If someone is being honest, they will be fine with being asked for their Bible authority for an action...and will even expect it and be happy that people are asking! (1 John 4:1-3) If someone is "offended" because you ask to see the Bible authority for what they are doing, then something is wrong! If they are trying to hide what they actually believe behind tricky words and avoidance of the subject, then there is something wrong (Romans 1:15-17; Colossians 3:17; 2 John 7-11).

Judge Not - What Do the Scriptures Say About Judging?

In the world today (although this is nothing new), Christians are commonly faced with the argument “you shouldn’t judge!” It seems that no matter what the sin, whether it is gossip, lying, murder, or the current hot-button issue of homosexuality, the Christian is judged to have the wrong attitude by “judging” the person committing the sin.  If a Christian tries to explain to a person that they are doing something contrary to the Gospel of Christ, the almost instantaneous retort is “judge not that ye be not judged!”  This retort is generally followed up by an attempt to show some perceived or even real hypocrisy in the life of the Christian, which is thought to negate the sin in their own life.  

Now, can a Christian be a hypocrite in their judging of others? Absolutely.  Does that hypocrisy negate the sin the Christian is addressing in the life of another? Absolutely not.  Can a Christian justly judge another human being as living in sin? Again, absolutely.  Let us take a few moments and look at the Scriptures, not to cement our already preconceived notions (whatever they may be), but to see what the Scriptures actually say about judging. 

Matthew 7:1 is possibly the most used and misused verse in the Bible (excluding, perhaps, John 3:16).  Here, Jesus says, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (NKJV). It seems that many readers stop with this single verse as though it encompasses the entire meaning of the passage and there is nothing else to consider (not trying to be harsh or unfair in this assessment, only stating from experience that I have never seen anyone try to quote anything from Matthew 7 beyond verse 1).  A little less often used is Romans 2:1-4.  Again, it seems as though many leave off with verse 4 instead of keeping it in context.  Should a discussion make it past these two verses, another popular retort comes from John 8:7 where Jesus says, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first,” but once again context is generally neglected.  Now, to be fair, if these passages were the only ones that we had to go on (without even their immediate contexts), then coming to the conclusion that we as humans are not to judge one another would be a very logical and correct deduction.  But we need the rest of the story, so to speak, and that is found in the contexts of these passages, as well as in some additional ones found throughout the New Testament.

If we continue to read further in Matthew 7, Jesus goes on to tell us that the same measurement of judgment that we issue will be dealt back to us.  He absolutely DOES address the attitude of the judge and tells that person to remove the speck, or sin, from their own lives.  A Christian who obeys the Lord’s commands (Acts 2:38; John 14:15) has removed that speck, and thus can see clearly to remove the speck from another’s eye (Matthew 7:5).  Additionally, when a Christian uses the Scriptures as their measurement of judgment (again, attitude IS addressed in this passage), then of course we will be judged by the same measurement! In other words, Jesus addresses our attitude and essentially tells us not to take such a thing lightly.  Likewise, Romans 2:1-4 has a context.  At the end of Romans 1, Paul talks about those who are judging others as being in sin, but they themselves are doing the same things (so, for instance, an envious person is judging another person of envy, etc).  Further, Paul is discussing those that laid aside the will of God and embraced the evilness of this world (Romans 1:18-2:11).  In other words, the context of both of these passages does not indicate not judging at all, but only the right kind of judgment! The remainder of the context of John 8:1-7 is, actually, a perfect example to illustrate the discussion thus far.

While many people will read John 8:1-7, most will stop at verse 7, or at the very least they seem to ignore from there forward.  However, Jesus does address the attitude of the accusers, but He does not indicate that because the accusers had the wrong attitude that the woman’s sin was negated! What does Jesus actually do in this passage? The scribes and Pharisees had brought this woman to Jesus and accused her of adultery (since she was caught in the very act of it, have you ever wondered where the man was that was also involved?), but they were not accusing her to either save her soul or to even fulfill the law, as we are told in John 8:6.  Rather, they were brining her to Him in order to test Him! When Jesus tells them that the one without sin should cast the first stone, He is addressing their attitude, not whether or not the woman was guilty.  They are convicted by their own consciences (John 8:9).  Now, with the attitudes (which fully illustrates the wrong type of judgment discussed in both Matthew 7 and Romans 2) having been addressed, Jesus absolutely does show mercy to the woman.  He does NOT act as though she had not sinned, which is evidenced by the fact that He commands her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). 

Now, let’s take a step back for a moment.  Let’s assume for a moment that Matthew 7:1 and John 8:7 actually mean what they are generally misapplied to mean and that we are not to judge anyone.  Would that apply to the Apostle Paul? Surely we would tread carefully before judging an inspired man of God as not having the ability to judge someone in sin! Consider 1 Corinthians 5:3 where Paul writes, “For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed.”  Note that Paul not only judges the man who has his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1), but that he addresses the attitude with which he did the judging (“…absent in body but present in spirit…”).  He also judges the congregation that had not dealt with this sin (1 Corinthians 5:2, 6)! Now, at this point, we may be tempted to make the argument that Paul was an inspired apostle and that we are not (please note 1 Corinthians 11:1 and 1 Corinthians 4:15-16 if this is your true stance).  Even if we again grant that argument, Paul did have the ability to judge and he has provided numerous lists of sins! There are at least four extensive lists of sins provided by God through Paul for us (1 Corinthians 6:8-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-7).  Galatians 5 also includes “and the like” in the list, which indicates that there must be some sort of judgment made by man since it was written to man! All of these passages are in addition to Paul’s depiction of a Godless society in Romans 1! Thus, even if we grant that we cannot judge and that Paul, as an apostle, was allowed to judge where we are not, we have an entire list of sins that we cannot participate in.  In other words, Paul calls fornication a sin, so if a person commits fornication they are sinning…not by my word, but by the inspired writings of the apostle Paul!

As homosexuality is, as I said, the “hot-button” issue of the day, let us use that as an example.  Many people today call Christian’s “haters” if they oppose the sin of homosexuality and they tell Christians not to judge.  Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, condemns homosexuality and sodomy as being sins.  If a person is participating in those worldly things, how is it that a Christian is truly judging them? Christians merely utilize the Scriptures to show another human the path to heaven! Can a Christian do this with the wrong attitude? Absolutely.  If, perchance, a Christian DOES “judge” with the wrong attitude, is the person participating in these sins no longer a sinner? Of course they are still a sinner! Remember, while Jesus did address the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees, He did not forget that the woman had sinned!

While many people don’t think about it in these terms, all people make judgments.  If we decide that a person living in sin is “ok,” then we have judged them to be so.  If we make that decision and nobody else shows that person the Scriptures, then we may have also judged their eternal soul and condemned them to eternal torment because we were unwilling to help them see the sin in their life.  Do we want that soul’s condemnation on our hands because we had the opportunity to teach them? Do we want that on our hands in the day of our own judgment by the Lord? While they may or may not listen to us when we show them the Scriptures, our job is to show them the path to heaven!

Finally, as we begin to conclude, consider this: too much time is spent by Christians trying to defend their reasons for “judging.”  Too often, we spend so much time concentrating on the messenger’s attitude and making sure that they are doing it right (which, coincidently, involves judgment…) that the sin of the “judged” is overlooked or excused.  Note Proverbs 17:15 where we read, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord,” and Isaiah 5:20 where we read, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Why Authority is Necessary in the Spiritual Realm (Article 02)

As noted in our previous article, even modern mankind recognizes the need for authority in the secular realm; we must have laws and representatives to enforce those laws when necessary.  This is a generally accepted concept, although we also noted that there would be exceptions.  However, when it comes to our souls, many people perpetuate the belief that authority is unnecessary and that God must accept whatever we are willing to offer Him (if anything at all).  If authority is necessary in the unimportant events of this life, then shouldn’t it be much more important when it affects our souls?

Even Jesus recognized the need for authority in the spiritual realm; if we deny it, then we are saying that Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about or what was necessary.  In Matthew 21:23-27, the religious leaders of the time recognized the necessity of authority and when they disagreed with the teachings of Jesus, they questioned Him concerning where He had obtained His authority for His doctrine.  By even questioning Jesus in this manner, the chief priests and elders were acknowledging the necessity for authority in religion, as well as the fact that such authority must come from an entity that has the rightful power to grant it.[1]

Also shown in this very same passage is that Jesus concurred with the chief priests and elders on the necessity of such authority.  Additionally, Jesus acknowledged that there are only two sources of religious authority: divine (God – proper) and human (improper and powerless).  Obvious there is a difference between the two sources and Jesus did not equate the authority of men with the authority of God; this is evidenced by the fact that Jesus even asked, “The baptism of John – where was it from? From heaven or from men?” Why ask where it came from if they held equal importance in the eyes of God?

Some argue that the religious world (Christians) does not need authority from God for all that they do.  Generally, when someone argues against the necessity of having such authority from God, they are submitting instead to either their own self-proclaimed authority or even the authority of other men (which is really the “authority” of the devil – Romans 6:16).  In Jeremiah 10:23, we read that the “way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (NKJV).  Man does not have the proper right, power, or even the proper intellectually ability to be his own authority in spiritual matters (1 Corinthians 2:6-3:4).  Whereas man is fallible, God is not.  Our judgment as humans is not on the same level as God’s judgment is, nor can we know the mind of God without it having been reveled to us (Ref. 1 Corinthians 2; Proverbs 14:12; Matthew 15:9; Isaiah 55:7-9).  If an individual does not have the proper judgment within themselves as Jeremiah 10:23 and Proverbs 14:12 indicate, then why would that individual entrust their souls to another human with the same shortcomings rather than submitting to the authority of God?

The necessity of God’s authority in the spiritual realm can even be found in the pages of the Old Testament; there are multiple examples of men and women who chose to do things contrary to the will of God and thus without His authority, and they paid the consequences for their decision to proceed without authority.  Consider Leviticus 10, which provides us with one of the clearest and arguably one of the most concise examples of the need for proper divine authority.  In this example, we have two men that were correct in their authority for most of their duties before the Lord and they only did one thing contrary to the command of God.   Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, were the correct men to offer incense before the correct God, they had the correct censers for the job, and they had the correct incense for the job.  However, they used fire “which He had not commanded them” (10:1) instead of the proper fire obtained from the altar of the Lord (16:12).  This was just a small infraction, wasn’t it? By man’s reasoning, yes, this would be a small infraction; who really cares where the fire comes from? Wouldn’t the incense burn just as well with this fire as with the fire God had commanded them to use? Aren’t the same ends brought about?

What we really learn from this example is that God has all authority over us and that He does have requirements for our service to and our worship of Him.  We have to have authority for all that we do in our worship of God and not just some.  Note that for Nadab and Abihu, the consequence for their infraction was immediate death; our consequence is the loss of our souls.

Consider also 2 Chronicles 26:16-20 where we read about King Uzziah attempting to burn incense to the Lord.  It was a good work for incense to be burnt before the Lord (as we see by the fact that Nadab and Abihu were commanded to do such), and by human reasoning it was “good” for King Uzziah to want to be the one to offer it.  However, it was specifically commanded that only the priests were the ones to burn the incense (Exodus 30:1-10).  King Uzziah opted to seek his own authority for what he thought would be a good work (ref. Jeremiah 10:23) rather than looking to God for his authority.  The consequence for Uzziah’s infraction of God’s authority was that he was struck with the disease of leprosy. 

As we can see from these passages, God set the precedence for authority being needed in the spiritual realm during the period of the Old Testament Law.  Logically, the requirement for divine authority did not end along with the Old Testament Law, but rather that it continued into the New Testament.  This fact has already been noted from studying Matthew 21:23-27, but there are numerous other passages in which Jesus recognized and taught the need for proper religious authority.  For instance, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus states that there would be many who claimed to have done works in the name of God (by the authority of God), but that they will be separated from God because of their lawlessness (lack of submission to the proper authority).  Simply claiming to have the proper authority does not make it the proper authority.  Those that practice lawlessness will be gathered and cast into the furnace of fire (Matthew 13:41-42).

Using many parables, Jesus taught obedience to His commands; thus we have the parable of the wise man that built his house on the rock (foundation of proper religious authority) and when the storms came his house stood strong.  On the other hand, the foolish man build his house on the sand (man’s authority, weak foundation) and when the storms came the house fell (Matthew 7:24-27). 

Likewise, the Apostles taught the same need for authority from God throughout their teachings and writings.  In Philippians 3:16, we have the plea that we all walk by the same rule and have the same mind.  If there is no greater authority than mankind, how could there possibly be such unity? Paul, writing with the authority of God, makes the same plea in 1 Corinthians 1:10.  We cannot be so perfectly joined together if we are seeking to authorize our own actions rather than by submitting to the perfect authority of God.

In Colossians 3:17, Paul instructs us plainly that we are to have authority from God for all that we do.  Some contend that we do not need such authority, but that is a clear violation of not only the principle of this passage, but the command contained therein (reference also Galatians 1:6-10).  It is not merely suggested that we might want to see what God’s opinion is before we act, it is commanded that we seek His authority (reference 1 Samuel 13 & 2 Samuel 24).  God has given us His will and His word to teach and live by, but if we choose not to abide by it there will be consequences (2 John 9-11).  Seek, then, the authority of God and submit yourselves to His will.

---

[1] Reference the definition(s) for “authority” in the first article. 

What is Authority? (Article 01)

Authority is a concept that is predominantly accepted by even our society today even though it is not given much conscious thought (this is a general observation and as such we recognize that there will be some “exceptions” to it).  The need for secular authority is recognized by mankind because of the inherent structure facilitated by it.  Authority is manifested in our homes in form of parents, in schools (teachers/principals), in businesses (managerial hierarchy), and in state and federal government bodies.  While it has often been the trendy thing to do to question or be outright rebellious to authority, the majority of individuals understand the concept enough to realize that removing it would be detrimental to society as a whole.

The necessity of authority in society is obvious in the examples cited, but they do not necessarily explain what “authority” actually is or how it is to be used.  What does “authority” actually mean and how does it impact our secular lives? More importantly, how does it impact and apply to our spiritual lives?

Authority – noun – 1.) The power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.  2.) A power or right delegated or given; authorization.  3.) A person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.  4.) Usually, authorities.  Persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government.[1]

This is the secular view of authority and it does in fact express the basic concepts found even in a spiritual definition of the word.  In his workbook, A study of Authority, Billy W. Moore spends a great deal of time with definitions and explaining how authority works not only in the spiritual realm, but in the secular as well.  Moore quotes Joseph Henry Thayer as defining authority as the “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; leave or permission,” “physical and mental power; the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises,” the “power of authority (influence) and of right,” and the “power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed, generally translated authority.”  Also defined in Moore’s book is the World Book Dictionary definition: “the power to enforce obedience; right to command or act; 2. A person who has such power or right.”[2]

In essence, each definition states the same basic principle that authority is the right to command or act, and/or a person that has such a power or right.  For application purposes, consider how a police officer has the power or right to pull an individual over because of a traffic infraction, a principal of a school has the power or right to discipline an unruly student, and a store manager has the power or right to fire an employee. 

These are but generalized application of the principle of authority, but pertinent nonetheless.  However, take some time and consider some of these concepts on a deeper level, such as our application of authority to the police officer.  If an individual drives above the posted speed limit and sees an officer of the law turn on their lights, what are they required by law to do? They are required to pull off to the side of the road and turn their engine off.  Why is this to be done? Because that individual recognizes that the police officers has been granted the authority by either the local, state, or federal government to pull them over and to ticket them for the offense.  That individual also realizes that the failure to pull over will result in even stiffer consequences.  This example shows two levels of authority; 1.) the government’s authority to utilize police officers, and 2.) the police officer’s authority to enforce the law.

Since many today adhere to the doctrine that authority is not needed in the spiritual realm, let us make the same application to the secular realm.  What if there were no authority and everyone simply did as they wanted to do? For instance, what if there were no governing authorities concerning speed limits on the interstates? If everyone drove whatever speed they wanted to drive (granted, some already do), then the roads would be in complete pandemonium.  One driver would decide that 70 mph is sufficient, while another would decide that 90 mph is more appropriate, and then a third driver would decide that 45 mph is the best speed for the passing lane.  Perhaps it is more applicable to take the example to the next level: what if there were no laws governing what direction you had to drive on the interstate? What if you could drive south in the northbound lanes or north in the southbound lanes? If there were no governmental authority to enforce the law, then why would an individual worry about committing thievery or murder (Ecclesiastes 8:11)?

When the concept of authority is broken down to these very base, secular levels, many understand the necessity of authority and the foundation that it provides for our society.  If we understand such applications in our secular lives, should we not recognize it as even more important in our spiritual lives? Unfortunately, while many people accept to some degree the concept of secular authority, they refuse to submit themselves to the will of God.  While willing to submit to secular authority, many people seek to create their own version of God (God in their image rather than their being made in God’s image), which generally consists of His not requiring anything of them or commanding them to do anything different in their life.  However, as we continue through our study of authority, we will recognize that authority is not only an important attribute to Christians, it is an unavoidable requirement in a Christian’s life if they are to reach Heaven. 

---

[1] Authority.  Dictionary.com (accessed: April 30, 2014).

[2] Billy W. Moore, A Study of Authority (Adrian: Lakewood Hideaway, INC, 2007), 5.