M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Salvete, omnes!
In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul says that he wrote to his church not to associate with so-called brothers who are drunkards, idolaters, greedy, etc. and even not to eat with them.
So, is this verse referring to those who have already been excommunicated? Who are still technically considered to be within the Christian fold? Or something else entirely?
If it refers to those who had already been excommunicated, wouldn’t this passage be going against Church teaching on interactions with those excommunicated? After all, doesn’t She teach that we should only exclude these people from official participation within the activities of the Church but that it is permissible to continue to associate with them outside of these activities? Or, maybe I misunderstand? Here, Paul seems to be advising (commanding?) the Corinthians not to have anything to do with so-called Christians who are guilty of the above sins.
Is the passage, then, perhaps “embryonic” in the sense that the notion of excommunication is still being developed, that the teachings of Jesus on the subject found in the Gospels are still being worked out during Apostolic times? In other words, perhaps Paul is teaching here on the application of Jesus’ words on excommunication as found in the Gospels, further expounding on the application of these words by saying that they should neither associate with nor eat with such men as Jesus spoke of?
Still, association and eating seem to be very generalized terms with no apparent technical application in this passage. So, perhaps Paul is speaking of something more general than about anything having to do with excommunication? After all, again, those excommunicated are not necessarily to be entirely disassociated with, at least as far as I understand the teaching on this subject. Could we really say that Paul is using the terms “association” and “eat” here in some technical, ecclesiastical sense? To me, that seems a bit of a stretch. After all, if Paul were speaking in any way of excommunication, he would likely have said something like “do not let such men participate in your agape feasts” (not simply “do nto even eat with them”, though, perhaps “eat” here could be understood in such a way). Still further, though, instead of saying “do not associate” with these people, one might have expected him to say “do not allow them to participate in the life of the Church/church”; here, he does not qualify the term “associate” which, in itself, seems to be a very general term. Perhaps when Paul here uses the term “association”, he is thinking of the whole local church community and not necessarily of individuals? In other words, the excommunicated)?) person is not to be included in associations of the local church community as a church community or as a group associated with that church community?
Paul does say that we are not to associate with those who are “guilty” of the sins he mentions. I’m not sure if I am making too much of it when I propose that he could’ve meant those who have been judged officially “guilty” of such sins by the Church? In other words, if Paulw ere speaking more generally, he might’ve simply stated that we should not eat/associate with those who “do” these kinds of things, but might not have specifically used the word “guilty” here. Am I reading too much into the mere use of this term or of one term for another?
As I understand it, the Church does not mandate that we completely disassociate ourselves even from so-called brothers who sin but only that, if excommunicated, we (or, rather, those in authority) prohibit such from participating in the life of the Church community. Yet, this passage most strongly seems to suggest that we cut all ties with such people.
What am I missing here? Is there any way we can still make this passage about excommunication or must we apply it in a more general way? If so, how? Would love to hear your thoughts on all this.
In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul says that he wrote to his church not to associate with so-called brothers who are drunkards, idolaters, greedy, etc. and even not to eat with them.
So, is this verse referring to those who have already been excommunicated? Who are still technically considered to be within the Christian fold? Or something else entirely?
If it refers to those who had already been excommunicated, wouldn’t this passage be going against Church teaching on interactions with those excommunicated? After all, doesn’t She teach that we should only exclude these people from official participation within the activities of the Church but that it is permissible to continue to associate with them outside of these activities? Or, maybe I misunderstand? Here, Paul seems to be advising (commanding?) the Corinthians not to have anything to do with so-called Christians who are guilty of the above sins.
Is the passage, then, perhaps “embryonic” in the sense that the notion of excommunication is still being developed, that the teachings of Jesus on the subject found in the Gospels are still being worked out during Apostolic times? In other words, perhaps Paul is teaching here on the application of Jesus’ words on excommunication as found in the Gospels, further expounding on the application of these words by saying that they should neither associate with nor eat with such men as Jesus spoke of?
Still, association and eating seem to be very generalized terms with no apparent technical application in this passage. So, perhaps Paul is speaking of something more general than about anything having to do with excommunication? After all, again, those excommunicated are not necessarily to be entirely disassociated with, at least as far as I understand the teaching on this subject. Could we really say that Paul is using the terms “association” and “eat” here in some technical, ecclesiastical sense? To me, that seems a bit of a stretch. After all, if Paul were speaking in any way of excommunication, he would likely have said something like “do not let such men participate in your agape feasts” (not simply “do nto even eat with them”, though, perhaps “eat” here could be understood in such a way). Still further, though, instead of saying “do not associate” with these people, one might have expected him to say “do not allow them to participate in the life of the Church/church”; here, he does not qualify the term “associate” which, in itself, seems to be a very general term. Perhaps when Paul here uses the term “association”, he is thinking of the whole local church community and not necessarily of individuals? In other words, the excommunicated)?) person is not to be included in associations of the local church community as a church community or as a group associated with that church community?
Paul does say that we are not to associate with those who are “guilty” of the sins he mentions. I’m not sure if I am making too much of it when I propose that he could’ve meant those who have been judged officially “guilty” of such sins by the Church? In other words, if Paulw ere speaking more generally, he might’ve simply stated that we should not eat/associate with those who “do” these kinds of things, but might not have specifically used the word “guilty” here. Am I reading too much into the mere use of this term or of one term for another?
As I understand it, the Church does not mandate that we completely disassociate ourselves even from so-called brothers who sin but only that, if excommunicated, we (or, rather, those in authority) prohibit such from participating in the life of the Church community. Yet, this passage most strongly seems to suggest that we cut all ties with such people.
What am I missing here? Is there any way we can still make this passage about excommunication or must we apply it in a more general way? If so, how? Would love to hear your thoughts on all this.
)