Cross Examination

Let’s turn, if we could, to 1
Corinthians chapter 6. We turned the corner into chapter
6 this morning. This faithful shepherd, the Apostle
Paul, so burdened with his troubled church, is faithfully dealing
with them, addressing their numerous errors, as we’ve already seen.
Not only their factiousness, but even their just carelessness
with regard to sin in their midst. From time to time, we need to
clarify things that we’ve said, and that’s really what Paul does
at the close of chapter five, to make other people understand
if they’ve misinterpreted or misapplied our directives. And so in chapter five, Paul
provides that clarity in order to correct an obvious misunderstanding
to something that he had previously said. He clarifies his instruction
about church discipline, which is not only a delicate topic,
but a subject that often gets muddied along the way by wrong
thinking, wrong teaching. Paul provides much clarity there
in chapter five, and we noted that in the midst of that study,
there are two kinds of church discipline, formative church
discipline, which discipline we’re all under, And then there’s
corrective discipline, the discipline that becomes necessary when an
individual’s pursuit of sanctification ceases in some particular area
of life. Well, this is the discipline
that Paul is addressing in chapter 5. In chapter 5, Paul deals,
remember, with that sinful man whose sin we won’t even mention
again today, verses 1 through 5. And then he deals with this
sinfully tolerant church, verses six through eight. And then lastly,
Paul addresses the mindset, the thinking that got this church
to this low, degraded place of allowing sin in their midst. In reality, they had turned things
upside down. They had not only misunderstood
Paul’s words, but they had greatly misapplied them. And he corrects
them by telling them first what he does not mean, addressing
their faulty understanding. And then he goes on to retell
them, review with them the real teaching on the matter of church
discipline. And so there at the end of chapter
five, Paul seizes upon the sweet subject of Christian fellowship.
the joy of fellowship with a brother or sister in Christ over a meal. But alarmingly, Paul says in
short that sometimes we need reservations about such a dinner. We need to exercise caution in
taking a meal with a particular brother. At times, this simple
act of fellowship over a meal is to be forsaken. It’s to be
set aside. There are times when dining with
a professing brother in Christ is not only problematic, it would
be sinful. And so, at the end of chapter
five, Paul is intensely dealing with the matter of appropriate
fellowship, what is appropriate and what isn’t, with whom a believer
may or may not fellowship. But as we turn the corner into
chapter six, we quickly discover that Paul digresses in those
opening eight verses. He takes on a completely different
subject. He will conclude his teaching
on the subject of abstaining from fellowship with sin, beginning
in verse nine of this chapter. But what he addresses there really
is his whole underlying concern in chapter five, that of fellowship
with sin. But he wants to deal with the
related matter in verses 1 through 8. It’s a detour, no doubt. You see, what he does in verses
1 through 8 of chapter 6 is to insert, inject, or even to take
a detour into a related subject. At the end of chapter 5, Paul
introduces the subject of judging, remember? Judging those within
the church, but not judging outsiders, those outside the church. And
so the transition from Chapter 5 to Chapter 6 is tied directly
to Paul’s wording in Chapter 5, especially verses 12 and 13. There, Paul’s correction has
to do with judging outsiders. He says, what have I to do with
judging outsiders? And he counters there in verse
12, is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? The Corinthians have flipped
things completely upside down, remember? They were judging outsiders
while ignoring sin in their midst. And so Paul has roundly chided
the Corinthians for their judgmental attitude toward those outside,
that is, unbelievers outside of the church. But here, in the
opening verses of chapter six, he addresses an equally terrible
sin, that of believers bringing their dirty laundry, their petty
arguments, and submitting them to the world’s judgment. What
he does here in the immediately following first eight verses
of chapter 6 is to address the very related subject of taking
a case with a fellow believer before an unbelieving judge or
court. Why would we let them judge? These things, if they are addressed
at all, ought to have been held privately and handled within
the church. Corinthians had jumbled and mishandled
it all. Judging outsiders, failing to
judge those within, and then venting their acrimony towards
a fellow believer before a secular court. That’s the scene. That’s where we come in chapter
six. Note it if you would as we read. Follow along with me
if you would. Beginning in verse one, does
any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to
go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or
do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the
world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the
smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will
judge angels? How much more matters of this
life? So if you have law courts dealing
with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who
are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is
it so that there is not among you one wise man who will be
able to decide between his brethren? But brother goes to law with
brother and that before unbelievers. Actually, then it is already
a defeat for you that you have lawsuits with one another. Why
not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this
even to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous
will not inherit the kingdom of heaven? pardon me, the kingdom
of God, do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you
were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of God. All things are lawful for me,
but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me,
but I will not be mastered by anything. Food is for the stomach,
and the stomach for food, but God will do away with both of
them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord,
and the Lord is for the body. Now, God has not only raised
the Lord, but will also raise us up through his power. Do you
not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members
of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never
be. Do you not know that the one
who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For he
says the two shall become one flesh. But the one who joins
himself to the Lord is one spirit with him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits
is outside the body. But the immoral man sins against
his own body. Or do you not know that your
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you
have from God, and that you are not your own for you have been
bought with a price? Therefore, glorify God. in your
body. Paul has already dealt with the
immorality issue in Corinth and a close second to that sin would
have to be that of greed that issued forth not only in fraud
but an outright theft in this city. Because of that Corinth
and really the whole Greek world was really litigious. That is they were lawsuit happy. Not unlike our own culture, it
was easy to take somebody to court. Now, a Jew, whether they
were a Christian or not, would have been exceedingly reluctant
to bring a matter before a secular court. The Jewish rabbis had
long taught against making use of secular justice. One particular
rabbi, Shulchan, said it most clearly. It is forbidden to bring
a matter of right before idolatrous judges. Whoever goes before them
with a lawsuit is impious and does the same as if he blasphemed
and cursed and has lifted up his hand against the law of Moses,
our teacher. Rome had granted the Jews authority
to judge their own matters internally. The Jews had their own justice
system, but Greek converts to Christianity would not have had
the same scruples. They thought nothing of taking
a case before an unbelieving law court. Take the offender to court, Even
a heathen court, no problem to the average Greek convert to
Christ. But this would be an increasingly
destructive thing to the Christian church, which was supposed to
bear all the hallmarks of brotherly love and oneness. Soon the Corinthian
believers would besmirch their reputation as being no different
than the Sioux happy citizens of Corinth. The church in Christ’s
name should have taken up the matter of judging as a solemn
responsibility within the church. You saw the passage and right
away I want you to notice something about those first eight verses.
There is a very distinctive literary feature in those opening verses.
Questions. Lots and lots of questions. Nine
of them in all. It reads like an interrogation
where Paul is hammering away at a witness. The people of the
Corinthian church, really. And these are primarily not the
kinds of questions that Paul usually poses rhetorical questions. The kind of question where he
really doesn’t seek a response. These are different kinds of
questions. These are very probing questions to which Paul does
desire and expect an answer. Rhetorical questions are plentiful
in his writings, but no more plentiful than in Romans 8. Just
listen. Romans 8 31, if God is for us, who can be against us?
No reason to answer or wait for that answer. There is no one. Romans 8.32, he who did not spare
his own son, but gave him up for us all. How will he not also
with him graciously give us all things? You’re right, Paul. Romans 8.33, who can bring a
charge against God’s elect? Crickets, right? 8.34, who is the one who condemns?
If God is the one who has justified you, who stands ready to condemn
you? No one. Romans 835, who will separate
us from the love of Christ? Those are all questions that
do not beg an answer from the hearer. We know Paul’s point,
not here. Here he seems to demand the answers. He poses questions and then he
is content to allow the silence to weigh heavily on these hearers
until which time they produce an answer. And I would suggest
to you this morning that these nine questions basically fall
into four different lines of questioning. In some cases, there
are multiple questions under a particular heading, but I want
to consider this morning Paul’s various lines of questions here
in this passage, shall we? I’ve referred to this or titled
the passage as cross-examination where he is challenging believers’
justice system. What is the believers’ justice
system? Specifically, he’s challenging
a very faulty justice system. His first line of questioning
is the believers’ misguided search for justice. Look at verse 1.
Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor,
dare to go before the unrighteous and not before saints? Just the
fact that Paul starts his section off with a direct question reveals
his great disappointment with his church. But the strong nature
of the question only adds to that. His first line of questioning
involves one very direct question. Does any one of you dare to go
to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? We
don’t have a lot of proof here, but I believe Paul already knows
the circumstances of what he speaks here. This isn’t just
a hypothetical case. He knows who’s involved and he
knows the nature of the dispute and perhaps even the father whose
son had some really questionable dating practices. Maybe he’s
even the one that brought this suit. We don’t know. But it isn’t
a hypothetical case. I don’t believe he knows who’s
involved. He knows the nature of the dispute. But Paul is exemplary here in
his intention to be circumspect about naming the individuals
involved or rather not naming them. What he wants is for this
individual or these individuals plural. He wants them to acknowledge
their sinfulness as he brings up this matter in a somewhat
public forum. He calls them out not by name,
but subtly. that they might be drawn quickly
to repentance. But if he speaks of this case
very delicately, if any one of you. But he speaks with a stinging
directness here, doesn’t he? Does any one of you dare? Are
you kidding me? His shock and disappointment
are plainly evident just by that one word. One of my favorite
old commentators says that Paul’s use of this word is a declaration
of treason against Christians. By engaging in lawsuits outside
the confines of the church, they effectively announced to the
world their distrust of the one institution where the Holy Spirit
indwells her members. and righteousness and wisdom
were supposed to prevail in the church. As soon as he utters
this word, there is a rebuke. How dare you? That word traces
back to our childhood, doesn’t it? I dare you. And at times it is used to speak
of abject courage in scripture. in the face of challenge or potential
harm. Remember, after Jesus was crucified,
Mark records that Joseph of Arimathea gathered up courage, same word,
to go and secure the Lord’s body. Paul spoke enthusiastically and
to the Philippians about those in Rome who had far more courage,
same word, to speak the word of God without fear because of
what they observed in Paul. So the word is used in a positive
way, but it’s also used in a negative way. To refer to presumptuousness
or even audacity. In this regard, the Jews, you
might recall, even Christ’s own disciples on numerous occasions,
would not dare or venture to ask Jesus any more questions.
They threw up their hands. The book of Jude provides a dramatic
use of this word in this particular sense. In Jude 9, it says that
Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil, did
not dare to pronounce a personal judgment against the devil. Well, likewise here, Paul says,
how could you dare bring a case against a neighbor to court?
This word pragma, you can hear it there, can’t you? It’s the
word from where we get our word pragmatic. And it just speaks
of a happening, an event, a matter, or if you will, a thing. How
could you bring this thing, this case, before an unbelieving law
court in your pursuit of justice? This case is said to be against
a neighbor, and it’s loosely translated there, at least in
the NAS, The word really could be translated very plainly as
another, as somebody. There’s a more precise word for
neighbor had Paul desired to be specific here. He’s not talking
necessarily about a literal neighbor. In fact, Paul intentionally leaves
this vague here by using this word neighbor, but the interrogation
proceeds and Paul will clarify his concern It’s that this man
has dragged a brother, a Christian brother, into court over some
dispute. No matter, this is a serious
transgression, what one writer called a grave evil. And Paul’s
immediate concern here is not that someone has a legal case
and has decided to pursue justice to file a lawsuit. He’ll deal
with that element soon. But his immediate concern here,
or to whom the man with the complaint has gone for justice, in which
court he has filed his lawsuit, that’s Paul’s main concern. And I believe that Paul very
well knows the answer to this question. And so he alludes to
it here. Some believer in the Corinthian
church has taken their case, this complaint against a fellow
believer before the unrighteous. He’s filed a suit in secular
law court instead of bringing it, as he says at the end of
the verse, before the saints, before the church. When Paul
uses the word unrighteous here, he’s not suggesting, and we need
to be clear on this, he’s not suggesting that an earthly judge
has no ability to render relative justice in a case. There are
many decent people serving as judges. But when Paul offsets
the term unrighteous with the term saints, everything comes
into focus. It’s clear that Paul is speaking
of spiritual standing here, not moral character. Christians should
understand and regard God’s justice system that God has, who is infinitely
just in dealing with our sin, sent his own son to atone for
that sin. God saw our helpless estate and
he redeemed us from our sin and set us apart. He set us apart
from the fallen world and set us apart for himself. We are
saints. set apart ones. But an unbeliever who does not
know of the righteous judgment of God, he cannot ultimately
be a good judge in things pertaining to two believers. He can’t do
it. And so there’s a touch of irony
here even in this verse. Paul hints that this man is going
to the unjust to seek justice. And Paul effortlessly moves to
his second line of questioning in verses two and three. Not
only the believers’ misguided search for justice, but his second
line of questioning is the believers’ calling to justice. And by that,
he points out that we are called to participate in God’s justice
system. Look at verse two. Do you not
know that the saints will judge the world? This might be news
to some of you this morning. If the world is judged by you,
are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you
not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this
life? So in the second phase of questioning
or subsequent angle, if you will, of questioning, Paul moves to
discuss the absurdity of ceding over judgment of any earthly
matter to the world’s judges. Why would we do that? When Paul
challenges, do you not know? He’s rebuking them for their
willful ignorance. They should have known. At one
point, they did know. Paul will echo this challenge,
do you not know, five times in this chapter alone. This was
a church that was willfully ignorant. They knew, but they were conveniently
forgetting biblical principles here. Please understand that there
are occasions. Some of us have already been
in these situations. There are occasions where you
will not have a choice. You’ll be dragged into court
and brought before a judge who may or may not be a believer
in Christ. And on such occasion, I do not
suggest to you that you demand first to see the judge’s baptism
certificate. Or demand to know if and when
he placed his faith in Christ before he judges your case. I
don’t suggest that. Maybe after he ruled on your
matter, you can do that, but not before. Paul’s point throughout
this discussion is not whether a believer may ever find himself
before a non-Christian judge. His point is why would any believer
willingly bring a case against a Christian brother before an
unbeliever? That’s his point. And his argument
is simple. Look at verse two. Do you not
know that the saints will judge the world? And the syllogism
is completed in the remainder of that verse. If the world is
judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law
courts? If one day believers will judge
the world in all of its myriads of conflicts, how is it that
any matter in this world, in the here and now, cannot be carefully
assessed by a godly believer? And so when he asks here, do
you not know the saints will judge the world? Obviously, he’s
referring to something future. In Christ’s coming kingdom, believers
who will reign with Christ. Not as so many individual judges,
but rather wholly aligned with their savior and king. If that’s so. As God himself promises that
in Christ’s reign, the world will be judged by believers.
How is it that a believer is not competent? In matters of
this life, why would anyone of the world look at a small church
with no authority or jurisdiction over the laws of the land and
not mock and laugh? They don’t think of us as anything.
This is a court. There are no marble pillars outside
of the court of the church, no courtroom adorned with fine oak
woodwork, no elevated judges bench, no robes. Just some believers
gathered around a table in a room with their Bibles open. The world
would think nothing of such a tiny, insignificant court, just as
they think little of the church. but not believers. To believers,
that’s the greatest courtroom in the world. We are not of this
world, and Paul’s question is spot on. Are not believers in
Christ competent for such a courtroom? His point is that they are. They’re
filled with the Spirit of God. They’re guided by the wisdom
of the Word of God. They are competent to hear and
provide counsel to two squabbling brothers. How completely unreasonable to
think that believers cannot judge in earthly matters in this life.
Foolish. And in verse three, Paul builds
upon that argument by challenging further, do you not know that
we will judge angels? That might come as news to a
lot of you too, and here too, or better, even more so with
regard to angels. Believers are not functioning
independently as judges over angels. but only alongside of
Christ himself in that judgment. We know that there are two kinds
of angels, fallen angels and what the Bible calls elect or
holy angels. By angels here, Paul can only
mean fallen angels, demons, not elect angels. I mean, can we
even conceive of sitting in judgment of God’s holy angels one day? Here’s how that might go. Now, Gabe, Gabriel, is it? Is it as little Johnny’s guardian
angel, you were responsible to keep him safe, is that correct?
On that day when he fell off his bike and skinned his knee,
where were you? I mean, it’s an absurd thought. Utterly ridiculous, but demons?
Jude 6 says that the angels who did not stay within their position
of authority but left their proper dwelling, he, that is God, has
kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment
of the great day. And believers with Christ will
judge. Second Peter echoes the same
context. God did not spare angels when
they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains
of gloomy darkness to be kept until judgment. That much is
true. Their judgment is pending. And
we will be beside Christ when he judges the demons. And so
Paul here just argues from the greater to the lesser. It’s called
an a fortiori argument as one characterized it from the grand
and celestial. To earthly and commonplace, if
one day you’re going to do this, judge the world and judge angels
beside Christ, can you not with the Holy Spirit indwelling you? Decide on a petty little argument
in the church. The bottom line point for Paul
is that they should, it’s degrading. It’s degrading to the church
to wander outside to present their cases before heathen courts.
Shameful. And with that, Paul proceeds
to his third line of questioning. Not only the believer’s misguided
search for justice and the believer’s calling to justice, but thirdly,
the third line of questioning is the believer’s choices. The
options available for justice, there are few. Look, if you would,
at verse four, so if you have law courts dealing with matters
of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no
account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is
it so that there is not among you one wise man who will be
able to decide between his brethren? But brother goes to law with
brother and that before unbelievers. So Paul has chided the Corinthians
for taking their civil complaints with fellow believers before
he then earthly judges. And he has sternly reminded them
of their calling to function alongside of Christ, reigning
over all creation and fallen angels. And his third line of
questioning is not unrelated. He narrows the argument here
in verses four and five to the selection of judges in earthly
matters. And he begins by acknowledging
that the world has its law courts and such is the function of civil
law and our court system to decide in disputes between two members
of society. It’s just a given. And Paul grants
that. There are laws, there are courts,
there are judges well and good. But the first thing here that
Paul points to is that two Christians should
have disputes at all over what he calls matters of this life.
That is a disappointment to Paul in and of itself. And he therefore
rebukes their pettiness over these trivial disputes. But his
concern follows. Do you appoint such earthly heathen
judges to matters pertaining to two believers? Do we import,
hire such judges to step down from their secular bench to come
into the church and decide matters, disputes between two Christians? You can hear the surprise and
dismay in his voice, can you not? Let me make this plain for
you. Can you imagine this morning
if Ruth Bader Ginsburg walked into this church? Now in the
first place, she’s no longer alive, so that would be a bit
of a surprise. In the second place, she’s Jewish,
another surprise. But I’ve asked you to imagine,
pretend, Can you imagine if Ruth Bader Ginsburg walked into this
church, 27-year member of the Supreme Court of the United States,
would you approach her to hear your case with a fellow member
of the body of Christ? That’s the absurdity. You have matters of this life
that you would stoop to submitting to an unbelieving judge. Such
judges, Paul says, are of no account. Literally, they are
the least. It’s the last place that you
would turn. No matter how educated they are, no matter how greatly
they’re esteemed as earthly judges, they have no position or standing
in Christ’s church. None. And so Paul’s conclusion
here is straightforward and scolding. I say this to your shame. This
is just an awful situation. It’s a situation that is a great
dishonor to Christ. This local church, Christianity
in general, is shamed by this behavior. But Paul is not finished
with this line of questioning and he immediately follows his
rebuke with yet another question. Is it so that there is not among
you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren My understanding here, along
with many other commentators, this is where the question is
completed. And the question mark should
be placed right there. Don’t you have anybody you can
call? Don’t you have someone better
than an unbelieving judge? You can appoint. And then the
conclusion of verse six. is the sad alternative, but a
brother goes to law with a brother, and that before unbelievers?
That’s the reality. That’s the reality in the Corinthian
church. They should have kept this ugly
matter in the church. Instead, they bring it out into
the open before the world, and in doing so, again, they declare
to the world that there is no spirit-indwelled individual,
godly and wise, who could better evaluate their case. That’s what
they tell the world. This is a truly shameful situation. There simply must be some godly,
wise, mature believer who would be better assistance to you,
who would be able to decide to evaluate your circumstance and
the evidence of your case and to render a decision to which
you would be obligated to submit. Taking your matter before him
instead of a heathen court would spare you the scandalous occasion
of airing your dirty laundry before an unbelieving world.
And with that, Paul goes on to deal with the matter that has
been woven throughout this entire discussion. Pettyness. The trivial nature of such complaints. We come to the fourth line of
questioning there in verses seven and eight. Not only the believers’
misguided search for justice and their calling to justice,
their choices for justice, but fourthly, the believers’ triviality
in justice. And here in these closing verses,
in a passage that is freighted with questions, as we’ve seen,
nine in all, Paul finishes this exhortation with two questions
sandwiched between two final statements. And he begins by
declaring that before any judge has even heard their arguments,
let alone having ruled. They’ve already lost. They’ve
lost their case before it ever got started. Paul says, actually,
then it is already a defeat for you. That you have lawsuits with
one another. He isn’t talking about the facts
of the case or the specifics of the case, or maybe a witness
didn’t show up, or the lawyer’s arguments were weak, or the jury’s
decision was political, or the judge’s sentence was totally
inappropriate. He isn’t talking about any of
that. Just the fact that it has come to this, a lawsuit with
a brother, it is already a defeat. In other words, it is an inherent
loss. Again, Paul isn’t arguing against
courts or against lawsuits, but rather lawsuits with fellow believers
that is so repugnant to him. Believers are members of one
family. To sue one another must necessarily
mean loss for the family, no matter who wins the case. And
with that, he publishes his two final questions. Why not rather
be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
Rather than bringing harm to his brother, harm to the church,
harm to the Savior, why not rather patiently endure the wrong that
has been inflicted? Paul closes this section that
is so replete with questions with one final climactic statement. On the contrary, that is, instead
of being wronged and defrauded, this offender, this offended
brother, returns evil for evil. That’s essentially what he does.
In his mad dash to avoid, at all costs, being wronged or defrauded,
this sue-happy man does the same thing to his brother. Instead
of joyfully suffering mistreatment at the hand of another, By filing
suit in a heathen court, the offended one effectively wrongs
and defrauds his brother in the Lord. Well, you’ve been patient this
morning, listening to Paul’s questions that he’s posed to
this troubled church. But I have a few of my own. You
see, you might be tempted to say, well, this is all very interesting. This first century Christianity
was sure a mess. This wasn’t just a first century
Christianity admonition. It’s for our day. And I’ve had numerous opportunities
in the course of my ministry to counsel several believers
against the option of entering into a lawsuit, bringing a case
with a fellow believer, whether it’s an employer, a business
associate or a relative. I’ve counseled each one of those.
The temptation is still here, perhaps even in greater measure
than it was in Corinth. Do you know that it costs you
$18 to file a small claims case? That’s pretty easy. You don’t
even have to have a lawyer. You can drag anybody into court
for anything. The temptation is still there,
but Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount are still timeless
as well. You’ve heard it said that an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist the one
who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would
sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who begs from you and do not refuse the one
who would borrow from you. Now, a great deal of heartache
and strife would be eliminated if believers were to pay heed
to Paul’s admonition in his second letter to Corinth. Do not be
unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness
with lawlessness or what fellowship is light with darkness? Many
Christians I have known have been exceedingly careless here
in getting into a partnership, getting into a business arrangement.
That passage is not just talking about marriage. I believe it
includes marriage, but I think it’s even more important that
you not get into business with somebody who’s not really saved. Many Christians have taken the
slightest profession of faith as legitimate. And then when
non-Christian principles are applied to real world situations,
they find out otherwise. And it usually doesn’t end well. Last Sunday, we had such a sweet
Sunday last week receiving in our members. May I remind you
of one of the numerous things to which we, as members of this
church, have agreed in this body. Listen, we do promise and endeavor
by God’s grace to bear with one another’s weaknesses, failings,
and infirmities with much tenderness. That much is true, but listen
to the rest of it. Not revealing them to any outside
the church, nor any inside unless it is according to Christ’s rule.
In addition to lawsuits and business deals, I see this principle violated
every day. Let me ask you, do you ever,
have you ever vented your frustrations with your church or with a fellow
believer to anyone outside the church? A more destructive thing to their
potential conversion, I can’t even imagine. Such treatment of Christ and
his church must be repented of. And stopped. Those outside the
church should never be burdened with any strife inside the church.