Ship of Fools: Internal vs External Sin in 1 Cor 5

Thread: Internal vs External Sin in 1 Cor 5 Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028323

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Here's the passage in question.

The question concerning the passage in question: Is Paul more disgusted by the internal state of the young male in question, or by the sexual abuse of another human being?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

My impression was that Paul was talking about inside and outside the Church, not inside and outside the person. FWIW

--Tom Clune

[ 12. February 2014, 12:12: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I'm afraid I don't really understand your question here, bullfrog. Who is it you think is being abused? By "internal state" do you mean "the fact that he's in the Church" or "the sin that is in him." The former seems to be Paul's concern. I'm not sure if there's any notion of objective vs. subjective sin operative here.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I'm afraid I don't really understand your question here, bullfrog. Who is it you think is being abused? By "internal state" do you mean "the fact that he's in the Church" or "the sin that is in him." The former seems to be Paul's concern. I'm not sure if there's any notion of objective vs. subjective sin operative here.

My focus was on the individual in question. THe situation being that he's apparently having sexual relations with his mom or step mom.

I was wondering whether Paul's focus is on his own personal lust or what can only be an abusive relationship between himself and his parent or step-parent.

Admittedly I might, being a modern American, be reading this too individualistically...

[ 12. February 2014, 14:28: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The man in question appears to be an adult--he is treated as one in terms of moral responsibility, and he is apparently in the church as a member without either his father (who may be dead) or his stepmother (who is not addressed for discipline along with him, as you'd expect if she were a member). So he is almost certainly not a child or teen.

The situation is not clear--his father may be living or dead, and the woman may be his stepmother or a second wife of his father's. In either case she may be about his own age, given the tendency for men to marry younger women.

I really doubt that there is any abuse going on--it appears to be a consensual relationship. If there is in fact abuse, it is most likely abuse of the woman, who is more likely to be dependent and at a disadvantage in escaping his advances. For example, if she is his father's widow, she may be wholly financially dependent on the son; very difficult to say in that situation, "Bug off."

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The man in question appears to be an adult--he is treated as one in terms of moral responsibility, and he is apparently in the church as a member without either his father (who may be dead) or his stepmother (who is not addressed for discipline along with him, as you'd expect if she were a member). So he is almost certainly not a child or teen.

The situation is not clear--his father may be living or dead, and the woman may be his stepmother or a second wife of his father's. In either case she may be about his own age, given the tendency for men to marry younger women.

I really doubt that there is any abuse going on--it appears to be a consensual relationship. If there is in fact abuse, it is most likely abuse of the woman, who is more likely to be dependent and at a disadvantage in escaping his advances. For example, if she is his father's widow, she may be wholly financially dependent on the son; very difficult to say in that situation, "Bug off."

Hadn't thought of the possibility of the father being dead, probably since Paul didn't bother to mention that detail. Polygamy hadn't crossed my mind either. That does open the story up a bit.

I tend to think of your third paragraph, given patriarchy, it's not clear that the woman has a lot of choice in this.

I also didn't think "stepmother" except for the obvious taboo on sleeping with a biological mother being so disgusting, but with the literal words are "his father's woman." I think because of my modern assumptions of monogamy and having, you know, a different word for "stepmom," this story just sounds really weird.

Though obviously a younger, second or third wife makes more sense, which makes this a really really messed up situation all around. Sounds like a seriously dysfunctional family, which of course is my modern ethicist reading the story. Hence my question. I'm trying to discern Paul's frame of reference. Is it that he's taking his father's rights? Is it a subtle echo of that prophetic rant about "father and son go into the same woman"? I guess that's what I'm wondering about. What is the focus? The relationship or the person?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think it's simply that this relationship is seriously taboo in that culture, so much so that "even the pagans don't do it"--which makes it doubly shameful for it to be tolerated right in the middle of Christ's church. It echoes Reuben and Bilhah--the relationship that got him demoted from being Israel's firstborn son--also Absalom's very intentional politically motivated rape of his father David's concubines. There is a taint of both incest and father-defiance about it, as well as the likelihood that the woman in question is not consenting. A triple "ugh" sin.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think it's simply that this relationship is seriously taboo in that culture, so much so that "even the pagans don't do it"--which makes it doubly shameful for it to be tolerated right in the middle of Christ's church. It echoes Reuben and Bilhah--the relationship that got him demoted from being Israel's firstborn son--also Absalom's very intentional politically motivated rape of his father David's concubines. There is a taint of both incest and father-defiance about it, as well as the likelihood that the woman in question is not consenting. A triple "ugh" sin.

Works for me. So it's the whole situation, in which the man in question is the center.

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :

Paul is certainly condemning of the actions of the man in question, however, ISTM that what Paul is really fired up about in this passage is the congregation's actions in this situation, which he describes as 'arrogant' (v.2) and 'boasting' (v.6).

I wonder whether the congregation was quite proud of how 'gracious and accepting' they were of this man, and suspect they had lost sight of the importance of "repentance" in the life of a congregation?

[ 17. February 2014, 02:02: Message edited by: Anselm ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0