Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership?

By Jay E. Smith

[Jay E. Smith is a Bible teacher in Buffalo Grove, Illinois.]

The current epidemic of sexual immorality among Christian leaders raises an unfortunate but necessary question on which opinion is divided sharply.[1] Can fallen leaders be restored to leadership? In other words does immorality permanently disqualify one from Christian leadership?

In this article no attempt is made to provide a precise definition of “sexual immorality” or to classify the extent and severity of sin. Nor is effort made to create a hierarchy of sins or situations that might warrant, by virtue of their seriousness, permanent disqualification.[2] Rather, the article focuses on the question of permanent disqualification itself, asking whether it should be the mandatory sentence for what is unquestionably sexual immorality. Thus sexual immorality refers to sexual relations outside marriage, with the physical act of adultery serving as a prime example. Also the question of the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage and how these issues affect this topic are not considered here. The word “leadership” is used in reference to the office of elder (pastor/overseer/bishop).[3]

Old Testament Background

Numerous Old Testament standards and examples refer to the problem of sexual immorality in general and to the problem of sexual immorality among Israel’s leadership in particular.

Rules for Priests

In Leviticus 21:7 Moses indicated that the Levitical priests must “not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled; neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband” (NIV).[4] The reason for this restriction follows in the next clause, which observes that a priest was “holy to his God.” “They must not marry [such] women…because priests are holy to their God.” Thus the past sexual activity of such women was inconsistent with the position of a priest set apart for God’s service.[5]

Ezekiel 44:22 echoes Leviticus 21:7: “They [the Zadokite priests] must not marry a widow or a divorced woman but shall take virgins from the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.” In this instance a different reason is given for the marital restrictions: “They shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean” (Ezek 44:23). In other words by following these regulations the priests could teach the people the difference between the sacred and the profane through the example of their lives.[6] As Israel’s moral guides,[7] the priests were subject to more rigorous standards consistent with that responsibility.[8]

Though not addressed directly, the logical extension of the wife’s purity would seem to be that the priest’s own sexual purity was an important element in determining his suitability for office. At the very least, these marital restrictions indicate the priest’s need to avoid all contact with sexual immorality.

Just as a wife’s character reflects on her husband, so a child’s behavior reflects on a parent. Leviticus 21:9 indicates this in another rule for the priests: “The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.”[9] Here sexual immorality was such a serious affront to the purity of the priesthood that the priest’s wayward daughter must be executed for disgracing her father. What is significant here is that the most stringent form of capital punishment[10] must be exacted for what normally does not appear to have been a capital offense.[11] That a priest’s daughter should be so severely punished underscores the importance of sexual purity for the priest’s family.

Moral Failure Among Israel’s Leadership

Moses and Aaron.[12] Following Moses’ rash act of striking the rock at Kadesh, “the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you have not believed Me, to trust Me as in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them’“ (Num 20:12). In disobeying God, Moses and Aaron failed to honor God before the people, and for this they were punished severely. Interestingly, though Moses and Aaron were not permitted to enter the land, God did not immediately relieve them of their leadership responsibilities.[13]

An earlier incident in Aaron’s life is also noteworthy. On Sinai, God told Moses of His plan to have Aaron installed as high priest (Exod 28:3). Before Moses came down from Sinai, however, Aaron led the people in the idolatrous worship of the golden calf, which included sexual immorality (32:2–6).[14] Despite this failure, God did not reject Aaron and appoint a new priest. He was still God’s choice.[15]

Samson. Set apart as a Nazirite from birth, Samson held the position of judge in Israel for 20 years (Judg 15:20; 16:31). Though he repeatedly succumbed to sexual temptation,[16] God’s blessing of special strength remained with him.[17] Only when Samson’s Nazirite vow was broken by the shaving of his head, did God cease to empower him (16:19–20).[18]

Hophni and Phinehas. The wicked priests Hophni and Phinehas appropriated for themselves the choice meat of the sacrificial animals that rightfully belonged to God (1 Sam 2:13–17) and engaged in sexual immorality with the women who served at the entrance to the tabernacle (v. 22).[19] As a result God rejected the priesthood of Eli and his descendants forever (2:27–36; 3:11–14).[20] Yet God did not end the office of priest altogether, for He raised up a faithful priest, Zadok, whose lines of succession would be firmly established (2:35).[21]

David. Following David’s sin with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, Nathan told David that God had forgiven him and would spare his life. “The Lord has taken away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Sam 12:13). Though David was forgiven, God’s judgment on him for his sin with Bathsheba was permanent. “Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (v. 10 ). Though David was restored to fellowship with God and his throne was not taken from him permanently, God continued to bring sorrow on him and on the nation as well because of his sin.[22]

Apostate Levites.[23] Ezekiel 44:10–14 records numerous limitations placed on the Levites’ ministry because of their past idolatry (vv. 10, 12; 8:1–18; cf. Num 18:23). Though not excluded from all types of priestly service nor specifically said to be guilty of sexual immorality, they were nevertheless demoted from the office of priest to that of temple servant. Thus their past sins had rendered them unfit to stand before God (Ezek 44:15).

The Disgrace of Sexual Immorality

Proverbs 6:32–33 states the consequences of sexual immorality. “But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away” (NIV).

The expression “destroys himself” may be a reference to the death penalty prescribed for adultery (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22); however, the following verses (Prov 6:33–35) seem to contemplate the adulterer’s continued existence. Apparently the adulterer lives on in disgrace, destroyed spiritually and socially.[24] “Blows and disgrace” are his lot, as the jealous husband (vv. 34–35) vents his fury in bodily injury and in stamping the offender with the indelible stain of disgrace. The adulterer’s shame (חֶרְפְָּה)[25] will not be blotted out, and he will bear the stigma of his offense.[26] An outcast, he has committed social suicide and destroyed himself.[27]

This image of the sexually immoral person as a social outcast is a recurrent theme in Proverbs. In 5:14 (“I have come to the brink of utter ruin in the midst of the whole assembly,” NIV) the adulterer is brought to the place of public ruin by the destruction of his reputation.[28] Moreover, Proverbs frequently pictures immorality as leading to death (2:18–19; 5:5; 7:22–27; 9:18). Curiously, this notion of death cannot be limited with certainty to literal, physical death.[29] Death, it seems, is often a metaphor for irreversible and permanent disaster.[30] This suggests that the statements picturing immorality as leading to death may carry a figurative rather than a literal meaning. If a person becomes entangled in sexual immorality, he will find only estrangement from society. He will be numbered among its outcasts.[31]

This notion of the lasting stigma of sexual immorality is illustrated numerous times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 49:4 Jacob remembered Reuben’s offense from years earlier and cursed him for committing adultery with his concubine Bilhah (35:22). Tamar begged Amnon not to violate her, suggesting that her disgrace would be permanent: “Where could I get rid of my reproach?” (2 Sam 13:13). Apparently she was correct, for presumably she remained unmarried (v. 20).

Conclusion

The significance of the Old Testament background for this discussion is difficult to discern. The rules governing the Old Testament priests’ marital relations were strict, and this may suggest that a fallen elder cannot be restored. Correspondence, however, between the priest and the elder is not precise. Restrictions placed on priests reflect concerns for ceremonial cleanness in ways unparalleled in the New Testament.[32] Also as mediators between God and the people, the priests revealed God’s holy character in a way that today’s elders do not.[33] So directly applying the standards of the Old Testament priesthood to the office of elder is precarious, as illustrated from the requirement that the priest must be free from physical defect (Lev 21:16–20).

In some of these examples of moral failure sin permanently affected the man’s position of leadership. In other examples, however, profound negative consequences on a leader’s responsibilities seem to be lacking. So in the absence of any clear patterns, it seems best not to view these incidents as normative prescriptions for church leaders today.

As a commentary on the general condition of humanity, Proverbs’ account of the lasting social stigma of sexual immorality is a reliable depiction of the typical consequences of such sin. Though not a prescriptive standard that the church must enforce, this lasting stigma is nevertheless a consequence of sexual immorality that adversely affects the offender’s reputation and consequently his ability to lead.

New Testament Principles

Qualifications for Elders

Above reproach and blameless. The first qualification for the office of overseer is that he “must be above reproach [ἀνεπίλημπτον]” (1 Tim 3:2). Titus 1:7 contains a similar statement: “For the overseer, as a steward of God, must be blameless [ἀνέγκλητον].” In the preceding two verses Paul informed Titus that he should “appoint elders in every city…if anyone is [ἐστιν] blameless [ἀνέγκλητος].”

The parallels between 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 seem to indicate that Paul, though using two different terms, was describing the same moral qualification.[34] An examination of these terms elsewhere suggests that Paul was presenting a general, all-embracing moral requirement,[35] which he then spelled out in the qualifications that follow.[36] This seems confirmed by the fact that this requirement heads the list of qualifications in both passages.

The term ἀνέγκλητος carries legal or judicial overtones, suggesting that this qualification is concerned with an objective standard against which the church must measure the candidate.[37] This in turn is confirmed by the fact that the following qualifications spell out this standard.

In listing this qualification Paul was concerned that the candidate’s present status be blameless. It is not sufficient that a man was blameless, or that he will be blameless. He must be blameless at the time of his appointment to the office of elder.[38] This, however, is not simply an isolated or momentary state, for this requirement “cannot be fulfilled in a short time but will only become evident over a period of several years of faithful Christian living.”[39] This seems to be precisely Paul’s point in the selection of deacons: “And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach” (1 Tim 3:10).[40]

These considerations raise the question of the extent to which present blamelessness depends on past actions. More specifically, does past sexual sin permanently prevent a person from meeting the requirement of being blameless? While past sins can affect one’s present status, this effect need not be permanent, for one’s character is not fixed and immutable but changes as one either matures or regresses. Thus there seems to be little reason to assume that past sins must permanently render one blameworthy. In fact to subscribe to such a position ignores the possibility of genuine repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual growth, and assumes the questionable position of “once blameworthy, always blameworthy.” This would seem to disqualify all potential candidates, for no believer lives perfectly above reproach. In short, such a position denies progressive sanctification to potential candidates, for one must live a blameless life from the moment of conversion or else forever forfeit the opportunity to become an elder. So there seems to be no reason why the sexual offender, who confesses his sin, repents, and then consistently shows evidence of a blameless character, cannot meet the requirement of being blameless or above reproach. The past violation of the standard does not automatically preclude its future attainment.

The husband of one wife. In 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 Paul indicated that an overseer must be the “husband of one wife.” This phrase has generated numerous interpretations, four of which merit attention. The phrase could be a requirement of marriage, a prohibition of polygamy, a prohibition of remarriage, or a requirement of marital fidelity. These four options are not mutually exclusive nor are they all directly relevant to the issue of restoring fallen leadership. None of the first three interpretations, except for polygamy, explicitly addresses the issue of sexual immorality. Only the last interpretation bears directly on this question. But it is not at all certain that this is the correct interpretation, as opinion is sharply divided.[41] Moreover, it is not mandatory that one rule decisively for or against this interpretation, for even if this view is correct, it would not seem to disqualify the fallen leader, who, after confessing and abandoning his sin, has progressed in his Christian life and is now a model husband. Such a man would be the “husband of one wife,” thus meeting Paul’s requirement.[42]

Well respected by non-Christians. Another qualification for the overseer that has direct bearing on the question of restoration is in 1 Timothy 3:7. “And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church.” This qualification seems particularly important for at least three reasons. First, the impersonal verb δεῖ and its accompanying infinitive resurface in the text after being implied in verses 2b–6.[43] Second, Paul indicated the purpose of this qualification—”that [ινα] he might not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil”—which he did not do for the previous ones. Third, maintaining a good reputation with outsiders is a repeated Pauline concern (1 Cor 10:32; Phil 2:15; Col 4:5; 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Tim 2:2; 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 8, 10; 3:1–2).[44]

The purpose of this qualification suggests that a poor reputation in the eyes of the non-Christian world will cause the overseer to fall into disgrace, which is (καί)[45] a snare of the devil. Here the devil is presented as a hunter setting a trap to discredit the overseer.[46] It is important that the overseer avoid an unsavory reputation and the disgrace it brings, for the world judges the church through an evaluation of the character and conduct of its leadership.[47] This evaluation by the world clearly brings into play the past quality of a man’s life, because past sins, including sexual immorality, clearly affect one’s current reputation. Again, it must be noted, however, that past failure to meet the standard does not automatically prevent its future attainment. A word of caution is necessary, though, for the sexual offender’s reputation is not necessarily rehabilitated in the eyes of the world by repentance and consistent spiritual growth. To a certain degree the rehabilitation of his reputation is beyond his control and is subject to the discretion of society as a whole.

This qualification, then, unlike that of being blameless, depends on the subjective standards and views of others, rather than on conformity to an objective standard. The difference here is significant. Simply being thought blameworthy does not make one such. For such an assessment to be valid, there must be a basis: the failure to measure up to an objective standard. On the other hand, even if a bad reputation is not deserved, it continues to hound its owner. Thus if society persists in viewing a former sexual offender unfavorably, despite his repentance and subsequent exemplary conduct, he still fails to satisfy the requirement of having a good reputation with outsiders, which exposes both him and the church to ridicule. In short, a single slip may destroy one’s reputation permanently.

These qualifications in the Pastoral Epistles do not provide a basis for the permanent disqualification of a fallen elder, provided he corrects any deficiency and again goes on to meet the necessary requirements. Restoring an elder’s reputation with the outside world, however, may be particularly difficult. This is because such restoration, to a certain degree, is beyond his control and is subject to the discretion of society as a whole, which at times can be most unforgiving.[48]

A “Disqualification” Text: 1 Corinthians 9:27

Paul wrote, “I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27). From what he might be disqualified Paul did not explicitly say, but the most common views suggest that Paul feared the loss of reward for faithful service or the loss of salvation.[49] Another view suggests that Paul feared disqualification from the ministry.[50] Moreover, the reference to the rigorous discipline of the body seems to suggest that sexual immorality could play a major role in such a disqualification.

The primary support for this third view is that 1 Corinthians 9:15–23 focuses on Paul’s apostolic ministry. Though this view evidences sensitivity to the broader context, it overlooks several key factors. First, the immediate context (vv. 24–25) indicates that Paul’s focus was not on his ministry but on some eschatological prize””a crown that will last forever.”[51] Second, the inferential τοίνυν (“therefore”) in verse 26 indicates that the prospect of gaining this prize, or “crown,” is what determined and motivated his behavior (vv. 26–27).[52] So Paul feared the possible loss of this prize.[53] Third, the parallel between what is required to win the “crown” (v. 25), namely, the exercise of self-control, and what is needed to avoid disqualification (v. 27), namely, beating the body and making it a slave, suggests that disqualification concerns the “crown.” Fourth, in the close parallel of 2 Timothy 4:7–8, Paul’s successful struggle in the Christian life meant he would receive “the crown of righteousness, which the Lord…will award to me on that day.” Failure on his part then would have disqualified him, not from the ministry, but from this eschatological “crown.” Therefore it seems unwarranted to view 1 Corinthians 9:27 as a statement concerning possible disqualification from ministry. It is more consistent with the evidence to understand it as referring to loss of an eschatological prize.[54]

“Restoration” Texts

Galatians 6:1. “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.” Here Paul, envisioning a fellow Christian who had succumbed to temptation and fallen prey to sin,[55] directed the spiritually mature to restore such a one (καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον). Apparently Paul had in mind the person who has been caught in one of “the deeds of the flesh” just enumerated in 5:19–21.[56] The verb καταρτίζω means “to mend,” “to repair,” or “to restore to a former condition.”[57] Thus Paul had in view the rehabilitation of one who has lapsed into sin. The reference to sin and temptation (παράπτωμα and πειράζω) and the larger context of ethical instruction (5:13–6:10) clearly indicate that the restoration in view is moral and ethical in nature. It concerns restoration to a former spiritual condition. Absent from the context is any indication that Paul was concerned with restoration to leadership.[58] Rehabilitating the sinner, not reinstating the leader, was the primary issue. However, these situations, though not identical, need not be mutually exclusive. It certainly seems reasonable to suppose that Paul envisioned restoration to some sort of usefulness, which in some cases might involve the restoration to leadership. Therefore Galatians 6:1, while not referring specifically to reinstating a fallen leader to his former position, certainly leaves open that possibility.

1 Timothy 5:22. Paul warned Timothy, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily.” On a cursory reading, this verse would seem to refer to the initial ordination of elders and consequently would have little bearing on the question of restoration. Several commentators, however, emphasizing the early Christian practice of readmitting penitents into the church through the laying on of hands, have suggested that it refers to the formal restoration of penitent elders to their previous positions.[59] Besides according well with early Christian practice, this interpretation makes excellent sense of the immediate context (vv. 19–20), which deals with the discipline of elders. If such an interpretation can be sustained, this text would strongly support the view that fallen elders can be restored to leadership.

To understand 1 Timothy 5:22 as a reference to the restoration of penitent elders, however, is difficult to sustain for several reasons. First, there is no evidence, biblical or patristic, that the laying on of hands was employed to reinstate elders to their offices in the apostolic or postapostolic age. Evidence can be adduced to support only the practice of readmitting a penitent to fellowship through the laying on of hands.[60] Moreover, this practice was completely unknown in both Judaism and Christianity before the third century.[61] Second, the earliest interpretations of 1 Timothy 5:22 (e.g., Chrysostom, ca. 344–407, and Theodoret, ca. 393–458) understood the laying on of hands to refer to initial ordination.[62] This suggests that the evidence for restoration adduced from the church’s third-century practices may be misapplied when used to interpret this passage.

Third, the laying on of hands elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles refers to recognizing special gifts for ministry and not to the restoration of penitents (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).[63] Fourth, the interpretation that understands 1 Timothy 5:22 as an injunction against a hasty initial ordination accords better with the available evidence. It makes equally good sense of the immediate context,[64] it is consistent with the other references to the laying on of hands in the Pastorals, and it conforms well with Paul’s preoccupation in the Pastoral Epistles of securing men of proven character for the ministry (1 Tim 3:6, 10). In short, the decision here is between a plausible interpretation and a probable one; it seems far more likely that Paul was referring to a hasty initial ordination than to a formal restoration of a fallen elder.

John 21:15–23. After Peter’s threefold public denial, the resurrected Lord publicly reinstated Peter to a position among the disciples. Though Peter was neither guilty of sexual immorality nor was he restored specifically to the office of elder, his position and the infamy of his sin seem to make his case relevant to the question of restoring fallen elders. The significance of Peter’s reinstatement is difficult to assess, however, for it raises the issue of the normativeness of biblical narrative. Specifically, the issue is whether Peter’s unique place as one of Twelve, or Jesus’ personal involvement,[65] or the occurrence of the event before Pentecost[66] makes his restoration the exception rather than the rule. Evidence needed to resolve this issue decisively is not readily apparent, but other New Testament examples of failure on the part of leaders (e.g., Peter in Gal 2:11–14 and John Mark in Acts 13:13; 15:36–41; cf. 2 Tim 4:11) seem to favor restoration. At the very least, then, one should be very cautious about rejecting the possibility of restoration, for such action clearly would run counter to the example afforded by Peter and would be based on the mere possibility—not even the probability—that the case of Peter is not normative.

The Seriousness of Sexual Immorality

1 Corinthians 6:18. In this verse Paul seems to have made a distinction between sexual immorality and all other sins: “Flee immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.” This distinction has suggested to many interpreters that sexual immorality is unparalleled in its moral seriousness. According to this line of thinking, Paul was not saying that there are no other sins against the body, for surely drunkenness, gluttony, and suicide fall into this category. Rather, he was indicating that sexual immorality is such a grave moral offense that by comparison all other sins are “outside the body.” Calvin represented this comparative interpretation: “My explanation is that he does not completely deny that there are other sins, which also bring dishonour and disgrace upon our bodies, but that he is simply saying that those other sins do not leave anything like the same filthy stain on our bodies as fornication does.”[67] This interpretation is also held by Barrett, Conzelmann, Edwards, and Lenski.[68] This interpretation raises the possibility that sexual immorality leaves a stain that can never be removed, forever disqualifying the fallen leader. Before making any such pronouncement, however, 1 Corinthians 6:18 demands a closer look.

The fact that sexual immorality is a sin against one’s body gives the theological basis for Paul’s urgent[69] command to flee immorality.[70] However, the introduction to this argument—”every other sin [πᾶν ἁμάρτημα, NASB supplies “other”] that a man commits is outside the body”—complicates matters greatly.

The difficulty lies in the phrases “every sin” and “outside the body.” First, πᾶν ἁμάρτημα with the indefinite relative pronoun ὅἐάν appears to be an especially strong expression, suggesting something like, “Every sin, no matter what it is, is outside the body.”[71] Taken at face value, this seems to include sexual immorality, thus contradicting the next sentence, which specifically singles out sexual immorality as being “against one’s body.” Second, ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος is puzzling, for it seems to suggest that sins such as drunkenness, gluttony, and suicide are “outside the body,” and yet sexual immorality is a sin “against the body.” How can drunkenness, gluttony, and suicide be considered outside the body, while sexual immorality is not?

Allo observed that there are as many as 20 to 30 solutions to these problems, but the viable options can be restricted to two.[72] The first option is to understand, as Calvin wrote, that Paul was saying that with respect to the body, sexual immorality is in a class by itself. Paul was not denying that other sins have reference to the body. Rather, he was suggesting that there is something about sexual immorality, in comparison with other sins, that somehow puts them “outside the body.” This “something” that sets sexual immorality apart from other sins is its degree of wickedness and evil.

This view makes reasonable sense of an otherwise logically difficult passage, and its stress on sexual immorality as a sin of unparalleled evil is compatible with strictures found elsewhere in Scripture[73] and with the context of 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 (especially 15, which may suggest that sexual immorality somehow removes one’s physical body from union with Christ).[74] In this view sexual immorality is a sin of unparalleled evil.

However, several facts argue against this interpretation. First, the wording of verse 18 does not suggest that ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος is to be understood in a relative or comparative sense.[75] Such a view is derived solely from the supposed logical necessities of the verse.[76] In fact the phrase ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος seems to describe an absolute distinction rather than a relative one.[77] Second, the δέ introducing verse 18c does not signal an exception (i.e., every sin that a man commits is outside the body, except sexual immorality), as the comparative view requires, but indicates a true contrast. That this is the case seems probable for several reasons: (a) πᾶν ἁμάρτημα with the indefinite relative is an inclusive statement (“every sin, no matter what it is”), (b) δέ is commonly used to signal a contrast and only rarely introduces an exception,[78] and (c) when Paul made an exception to what otherwise looks like an absolute statement, he invariably introduced the exception with εἰ μὴ rather than δέ.[79] Third, in the context (vv. 9–10) Paul put sexual immorality and drunkenness in the same category with no hint that sexual immorality is in a class by itself.

The second option is to see verse 18b as a Corinthian slogan (“Every sin that a man commits is outside the body”) to which Paul responded in verse 18c “on the contrary, the one who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body”). By this slogan the Corinthians meant that the physical body had nothing to do with sin. The physical body was morally irrelevant, for sin took place on a completely different level of one’s being. Paul responded by saying that the body was not morally irrelevant and that by committing sexual immorality one sinned against his own body. Several factors favor this “slogan” interpretation.

1. It fits with Paul’s practice elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, where he cited and qualified various Corinthian slogans (6:12–13; 7:1, 26; 8:1, 4, 5–6, 8; 10:23; 11:2).[80] For the Corinthians to have used such a slogan would not be surprising, for, judging by Paul’s rebukes, sexual immorality was the besetting sin of Corinth.[81]

2. It allows verses 18–20 to exhibit a formal similarity with verses 13–17, where Paul cited a slogan, rejected it, and then elaborated theologically on the rejection.

Slogan	v. 13a-b	v. 18b
Rejection	vv. 13c–14	v. 18c
Elaboration	vv. 15–17	vv. 19–20

3. It fits conceptually with the slogan of 6:13a-b (“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food—and God will destroy them both”[82]), which not only presupposes that the body is morally irrelevant, but also suggests the corollary: “Sex for the body and the body for sex”and God will destroy them both.”

4. It relieves Paul from making a less than precise theological statement (i.e., classifying every sin as “outside the body” except sexual immorality, which is considered to be the only sin “against the body”[83]).

5. It explains the defective correspondence between ἐκτός, “outside,” and εἰς, “against.”[84]) If both sentences are from the hand of Paul, a more precise correspondence obtained by the use of ἐν, “in,” rather than εἰς might be expected based on the meanings of the prepositions involved and on the parallel in 2 Corinthians 12:2.[85]

6. It preserves the full, unqualified sense of “every sin,” which is implied by πᾶν used in conjunction with the indefinite relative pronoun (ὅ ἐάν).

7. It allows δέ in verse 18c to indicate a contrast as it commonly does rather than an exception, which it rarely does.

8. It explains the use of ἁμάρτημα (“sin”), which appears to be a non-Pauline word.[86]

9. It understands ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος according to its normal usage, that is, as making an absolute distinction rather than a relative one, as the comparative interpretation suggests.[87]

10. It allows the asyndeton in verse 18b to correspond to the grammatical connections of other slogans found in 1 Corinthians (6:12–13; 7:1; 10:23).

11. It allows ἄνθρωπος, a generic term appropriate for a slogan, to correspond to the use of the term in other slogans found in 1 Corinthians (7:1, 26).

Several objections to this “slogan” view have been raised.[88] First, the slogan is an abrupt element to follow the command to flee sexual immorality in verse 18a. This objection, however, is not decisive, for Paul, in repeating the Corinthian slogan, may be simply anticipating, as he so often did, their objection to his command to flee. Also he introduced other Corinthian slogans abruptly, with little introduction or warning, and often with an asyndeton (6:12–13; 7:1; 10:23) as he did here.

Second, it is objected that Paul’s reply seems to accept the general proposition of the alleged slogan (that every sin that a man commits is outside the body), providing only a single exception to it. This leaves the proposition essentially intact, returning one to the starting point”how can drunkenness, gluttony, and suicide be viewed as outside the body and not as against the body? This objection also is not persuasive, for Paul’s reply seems to have been formulated for the specific issue at hand, without concern for other possibilities.[89] Paul was not concerned at that moment with whether there were other offenses against the body.[90] Thus he was content to cite this single counterexample as proof that the Corinthian position was incorrect.

Third, Paul’s reply in verse 18c, it is argued, is an inadequate response to the slogan. The slogan indicates that the body is morally irrelevant, and Paul responded by saying that the one who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Paul’s refutation, then, rested on his claim that sexual immorality is a sin against the offender’s own body. Paul failed, however, to explain what difference the offender’s individual body makes, and thus, in arguing this way, he did not deal with the theological basis of the slogan, namely, that the body, no matter to whom it belongs, is morally irrelevant. In short, the objection says that since the slogan stresses the noncorporeal nature of all sin, Paul, in basing his refutation on the fact that the offender’s own body is involved, did not respond to the slogan’s basic premise. This is the most serious objection to the “slogan” view; however, it too is not compelling, for verses 19–20 explain why Paul’s emphasis on the offender’s own body successfully challenges the slogan’s basic premise. The offender’s body is morally relevant because it is no longer simply his own.[91] It is a temple of the Holy Spirit and an instrument to be used for God’s glory.[92]

The evidence favors the slogan interpretation. Paul was not arguing that sexual immorality is a sin of unparalleled evil. Rather, sexual immorality is one of several sins against the body, and as such it is not afforded a special place that automatically warrants an elder’s permanent disqualification. Even if Paul were singling out sexual immorality as a sin in a class by itself, it still remains to be shown that sexual immorality automatically demands the permanent disqualification of an elder.

Generally in Scripture. Paul apparently did not argue in 1 Corinthians 6:18 that sexual immorality is a sin of unparalleled evil, and yet sexual immorality is a very serious sin. This is substantiated by three facts from Scripture: (1) Numerous sexual sins were capital offenses under the Mosaic system.[93] (2) Adultery is one of only two legitimate grounds given for divorce.[94] (3) Sexual immorality is denounced repeatedly and vigorously throughout Scripture.[95])

Sexual immorality is a serious offense but it is questionable whether severity alone automatically demands permanent disqualification, for sexual immorality is not an unpardonable sin.[96] Moreover, in 1 Timothy 1:15 Paul himself claimed to be the foremost of sinners (cf. Rom 7:24), and yet elsewhere he defended his right to be an apostle (1 Cor 9:1–2; 15:9; 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11–12).[97]

Theological Reflections and Conclusion

Can fallen leaders be restored to leadership? First, it is important to recognize that the Bible gives no clearcut commands either way. No single verse or example clearly forbids or clearly sanctions restoration to leadership. Second, simplistic appeals to popular proof texts such as “the overseer must be above reproach” or “restore such a one” do not decisively answer the question. Such appeals generally miss the intent of these verses and underestimate the complexity of the issues involved. Third, the complexity of the issues indicates that the qualifications for leadership listed in the Pastoral Epistles are concerned with the current and not the past status of a man’s character.[98] To argue otherwise is to ignore the precise force of Paul’s statements and to deny progressive sanctification to potential elders. Consequently these qualifications do not provide the basis for the permanent exclusion of the fallen elder, provided he corrects any deficiency and goes on again to meet the necessary requirements. Fourth, this observation suggests a basic controlling principle: past sins that continue to affect negatively one’s status relative to the qualifications for leadership are disqualifying.[99] Therefore if these negative ramifications are eliminated over time, the fallen can be qualified again for church leadership. Fifth, the elder is required to have a good reputation with non-Christians. Restoring the fallen elder’s reputation with the non-Christian world, however, may be particularly difficult, for such restoration, to a certain degree, is beyond his control and is subject to society’s discretion, which at times can be most unforgiving.

Two observations concerning a Christian leader’s reputation with the non-Christian world must be stressed. First, it is difficult to overemphasize the importance of this qualification. Not only do several textual factors especially highlight this qualification, but a theological reason also stresses its importance: the world judges the church and its Lord by an evaluation of the character and conduct of the church’s leader. This poses the real possibility that the besmirched reputation of a leader will bring special reproach to the church and to the name of the Lord. In this regard Earle correctly observes, “When a leader in the church has a bad reputation in the community, it often brings irreparable damage to the local congregation and indeed to the entire cause of Christ.”[100] In such a case Paul’s denunciation in Romans 2:24 would apply: “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[101] Second, the moral seriousness of sexual immorality suggests that a reputation so tarnished will be difficult to rehabilitate. Scripture confirms this supposition and at several points suggests that a reputation tarnished by sexual immorality is almost impossible to rehabilitate. In fact the sexual offender may bear permanently the stigma of his offense.

This whole issue of sexual immorality’s social stigma raises the question of whether the fallen leader can circumvent the problem of rehabilitating his reputation by a geographical change. Admittedly this may provide a solution in some cases. But caution is in order, for it is amazing how often facts, once thought to be hidden away safely, are unearthed and emerge only to bring disgrace to the leader and, through him, to the Lord. This is not some fanciful scenario, for it accords perfectly with Satan’s schemes to discredit the elder (1 Tim 3:7; 2 Tim 2:26). Also the leader’s former community will often be aware of his future ministry, thus giving the unbelieving critic an opportunity for slander and further justification for his refusal to believe.

Instead of trying to circumvent the problem of rehabilitating a reputation by running from the situation, it seems better to address the problem directly. In this case it is natural to think of the public nature of Peter’s restoration as well as to expect the redeemed community to take the lead in overcoming the consequences of the elder’s sin.[102] In this regard, public disclosure of all the appropriate facts, responsible church discipline, and a monitored, long-term restoration process can make a significant contribution in rehabilitating a fallen elder’s life and reputation.[103] Moreover, the trust he has forfeited with his people may even be restored gradually.

Does God then forbid the restoration of fallen leaders? No. Does He leave open the possibility? Yes. Does that possibility look promising? Yes and no. If both the life and reputation of the fallen elder can be rehabilitated, his prospects for restoration are promising. However, rehabilitating his reputation, not to mention his life, will be particularly difficult, for squandering one’s reputation is “a snare of the devil” (1 Tim 3:7), and he does not yield up his prey easily.

Notes

1. See Jack Hayford, Restoring Fallen Leaders (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1988), 22–24, 45–48; Tim LaHaye, If Ministers Fall, Can They Be Restored? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 121–55; John MacArthur, Jr., The Master’s Plan for the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 255–57; and David Wyrtzen, Love without Shame: Sexuality in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Discovery, 1991), 131–32, 149–50, 164–66.
2. Several important questions will not be considered: (1) How long did the sexual sin continue? (2) How many people were involved? (3) Did the leader repent before being discovered? This study treats the basic issue of whether sexual immorality disqualifies. Unless a decision can be reached at this level, evaluating more complicated aspects of the problem is hopeless.
3. In the New Testament the terms “pastor,” “overseer,” “bishop,” and “elder” describe the same officeholder. See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); 913–15, and Robert Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 140–43.
4. According to Leviticus 21:13–15 the high priest was not even permitted to marry a widow.
5. To argue that only cultic prostitution is in view, thereby restricting the reason for the prohibition exclusively to idolatry, is unlikely. The use of זֹנַה (“prostitute”) with חֲלָלָה (“a woman who has been defiled”) in both verse 7 and verse 14 seems to point to two distinct categories, with זֹנָה referring to a prostitute per se (cf. Gen 34:31; 38:15–24; Deut 22:21; Josh 2:1; 6:17–25; Judg 16:1; 19:2; Prov 6:26; 7:10; 23:27; 29:3) and חֲלָלָה referring to a participant in pagan, cultic practices (John Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas, TX: Word, 1992], 343, 348). Cf. M. Zipor, “Restrictions on Marriage for Priests (Lev 21, 7.13-14),” Biblica 68 (1987): 259-67, esp. 265-66; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 1:431; and Allen Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 617. Also the restriction against divorcees points to the significance of the woman’s sexual history.
6. Ralph Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 6:978; and John Taylor, Ezekiel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1969), 272.
7. See Leviticus 10:10–11; Deuteronomy 31:9–13; 33:10; 2 Chronicles 17:8–9; 19:8; Ezra 7:6, 10; Jeremiah 18:18; Hosea 4:4–9; and Malachi 2:4–9.
8. The ordinary Israelite was not prohibited from marrying a divorcee or a widow. For a similar application of a stricter standard for teachers see James 3:1; cf. 1 Timothy 4:12; Titus 2:7–8; Hebrews 13:17; and 1 Peter 5:2–3.
9. The term prostitute (זֹנָה) need mean nothing more than a common prostitute. Cf. note 5 above; A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, Bible Study Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 217; Martin Noth, Leviticus, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 156; and R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 201–2.
10. The penalty may refer to being burned alive (cf. Gen 38:24), but it more likely refers to death by stoning and then the body being burned (cf. Josh 7:15, 25). In either case burning was reserved for particularly heinous sins (cf. Lev 20:14; Josh 7:25), as stoning was the usual mode of execution (Exod 19:13; Lev 20:2, 27; 24:14, 16, 23; Num 15:35; Deut 13:10; 22:21–24; Luke 13:34; 20:6; John 8:5–7, 59; 10:31; Acts 7:58–59).
11. Bernard Bamberger, Leviticus: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979), 232. No text unambiguously prescribes the death penalty for prostitution that does not involve adultery. Genesis 38:24 and Deuteronomy 22:21 may be exceptions to this, but Genesis 38:24 describes only the threat of such a punishment. Deuteronomy 22:21 prescribes the death penalty but the exact reason is unclear. It may have been for prostitution, but probably was for the woman misrepresenting her virginity, which was considered tantamount to adultery (Peter Craigie, Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 293). Moreover, Leviticus 21:7 and 14 seem to presuppose that prostitution was not a capital offense; otherwise the prohibition of marriage between a prostitute and a priest is difficult to understand.
12. Though Moses and Aaron’s failure was not sexual in nature, its impact on their positions of leadership makes it worthy of consideration.
13. A comparison of Numbers 20:1 with 20:22–29, 33:38, and Deuteronomy 1:3 indicates that Moses and Aaron continued to lead the people.
14. According to Exodus 32:6, “the people…rose up to play [לְצַק].” In Genesis 26:8; 39:14, 17 the verb צָחַק connotes sexual play (cf. Exod 32:19, 25).
15. See Leviticus 9:23–24 and Numbers 17:1–13.
16. See the episodes with the prostitute from Gaza, Delilah, and possibly the young Philistine woman from Timnah (Judg 16:1–3, 4–22; 14:1–8).
17. In spite of his sin with the prostitute from Gaza, Samson was still able to carry away the entire city gate some 30 to 40 miles (Judg 16:1–3).
18. James Martin, The Book of Judges, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 178; and Robert Boling, Judges, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 250. For a defense of the view that Samson was faithful to his Nazirite vow until his head was shaved, see Leon Wood, Distressing Days of the Judges (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 313; cf. Arthur Cundall, Judges, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968), 156-57,178.
19. First Samuel 2:13–16 indicates that Hophni and Phinehas functioned as priests.
20. Ralph Klein, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 27–28, 33. In a vision God told Samuel, “I told him [Eli] that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them. Therefore…the guilt of Eli’s house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering” (1 Sam 3:13–14, NIV).
21. For the outworking of the rejection of the line of Eli and its replacement by Zadok and his descendants see 1 Samuel 4:11; 22:6–23; and 1 Kings 2:26–27, 35.
22. Compare the deaths of Amnon (2 Sam 13:28–29), Absalom (2 Sam 18:14), and Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25), as well as Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam 15:1–18:33) and the rape of Tamar (2 Sam 13:14).
23. Though the Levites’ failure was apparently not sexual in nature, its impact on their future responsibilities makes it worthy of consideration.
24. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 6:154; Derek Kidner, Proverbs, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964), 74–75; and Allen Ross, “Proverbs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 5:938. “Destroy” (שָׁחַת) is also used in Proverbs 11:9, where it is said that the slander of “the godless man destroys his neighbor”—a clear reference to destroying one socially (cf. Prov 18:9; 28:24). For a conceptual parallel see 1 Timothy 5:6.
25. The word חֶרְפְָּה refers to a condition of shame or disgrace. It was used by Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:13 to describe her disgrace at being raped by Amnon (cf. Gen 34:14).
26. William McKane, Proverbs, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 331; C. H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899), 141; A. Cohen, Proverbs (London: Socino, 1946), 38; Ross, “Proverbs,” 938; and Kidner, Proverbs, 74. The Septuagint adds εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The Targum reads, “His shame will not be forgotten” (Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara, eds., The Aramaic Bible [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991], 22–23). Cf. Sirach 23:26 where the adulteress “will leave behind an accursed memory and her disgrace will never be blotted out.” Kidner astutely adds, “In any healthy society such an act is social suicide” (Proverbs, 75 [italics his]).
27. Kidner, Proverbs, 74-75.
28. McKane, Proverbs, 317; R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 36; cf. Sirach 23:21–27; 42:11. The TEV reads, “And suddenly I found myself publicly disgraced.”
29. Cf. Proverbs 5:23; 8:36; 10:2; 11:4, 19; 13:14; 14:12, 27; 15:24; 16:25; 18:21; 19:18; 21:16, 25; 23:13–14; 24:11.
30. Cf. Kidner, Proverbs, 53-56. Conversely, the promise of “life” often is not to be taken in its narrowest sense of mere existence but should be understood qualitatively as the flourishing of one’s affairs, the vitality of one’s whole being, or fellowship with God (cf. Prov 3:18, 22; 4:22–23; 6:23; 8:35; 9:6; 10:11, 16; 11:30; 13:12, 14; 14:27, 30; 15:4, 24, 27; 16:15, 22; 18:21; 19:23; 21:21).
31. Cf. Proverbs 2:18–19; 5:14; 6:32–33; 7:22–27; Ross, “Proverbs,” 915, 938, 942; Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 6:154, 170; McKane, Proverbs, 288, 317, 331, 341; Kidner, Proverbs, 74; Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, 141; and Cohen, Proverbs, 38.
32. For an example see Leviticus 21:2–3, which cites regulations concerning exposure to a corpse.
33. For parallels between the Levitical priesthood and Christ see Hebrews 8–10.
34. The parallel in wording is quite close. First Timothy 3:2 has δεῖ οὖ́ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶ́́́ναι; and Titus 1:7 reads δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶ́́́ναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον.
35. The first term, ἀνεπίλημπτος, is also found in 1 Timothy 5:7 and 6:14. In 5:7, Timothy was to admonish children to care for their parents “so that they may be above reproach.” In 6:14ἀνεπίλημπτος is used with ἄσπιλος (“spotless,” “without blemish”) in telling Timothy to keep “the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Extrabiblical evidence points in the same direction. Mart. Pol. 17:1 refers to Polycarp’s “blameless [ἀνεπίλημπτον] career,” and Lucian wrote that a dancer must be “rhythmical, graceful, symmetrical, consistent, unexceptionable, impeccable [ἀνεπίλημπτον]” (The Dance, 81). The second term, ἀνέγκλητος, also suggests irreproachability. It is used in Colossians 1:22 with both ἅγιος (“holy”) and ἄμωμος (“blameless”) when Paul described God’s purpose to present the Colossian believers “holy and blameless and beyond reproach.” Paul also used the term in 1 Timothy 3:10 in summarizing numerous qualifications for the office of deacon.
36. Gordon Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 1988), 80, 173; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 119, 121; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963), 75; and George Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, 1992), 155–56, 166.
37. Paul used ἀνέγκλητος in 1 Corinthians 1:8 and Colossians 1:22, both of which are set in eschatological contexts and allude to the final judgment. For a full discussion see Gordon Fee, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 43; Peter O’Brien, Colossians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 68–69; and New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “ἀνέ́γκλητος,” by Hans Währisch, 3:924. Also cf. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 17.289 (“Varus…spared the city because it could not be charged [διὰ τὸ ἀνέγκλητον…εἶναι…] with participating in the rebellion”); 3 Maccabees 5:31 (“I would have prepared them to be a rich feast for the savage animals instead of the innocent [ἀνεγκλήτων] Jews, who have exhibited to an extraordinary degree a full and firm loyalty to my ancestors”); and Währisch, “ἀνέγκλητος,” 3:923. The use of κατηγορία (“accusation”) in Titus 1:6 further supports this notion of legal imagery, especially when one notes the use of κατηγορία in John 18:29 (“What accusation do you bring against this Man?”) and 1 Timothy 5:19 (“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”)
38. This is obviously required by the logical necessities of selecting a blameless elder, and Titus was directed to do this if anyone was found to be blameless (εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, Titus 1:6).
39. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 916; cf. Robert Saucy, “The Husband of One Wife,” Bibliotheca Sacra 131 (July-September 1974): 238.
40. This also seems to be the assumption behind 1 Timothy 3:6 (the elder “must not be a recent convert”), 1 Timothy 5:22 (“Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily”), which probably refers to the hasty ordination of elders, and 1 Timothy 5:9–10, which lists the requirements to enroll a widow for support by the church.
41. For more complete discussions, see the commentary literature and C. H. Dodd, “New Testament Translation Problems II,” Biblical Theology 28 (1977): 112-16; Patrick Fairbairn, “On the Meaning of the Expression ‘Husband of One Wife,’ in 1 Tim III.2, 12, Titus I.6 ,” in The Pastoral Epistles (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1976), 416–32; Ed Glasscock, “‘The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (July-September 1983): 244-58; and Saucy, “The Husband of One Wife,” 229–40.
42. Paul was concerned with a man’s present status relative to this requirement. Cf. Glasscock, “‘The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2, ” 252–53; and Saucy, “The Husband of One Wife,” 238.
43. The particle δέ, which occurs only here in the list (aside from the parenthetical v. 5), and the emphatic καί also stress the importance of this qualification. Absolute necessity is suggested by δεῖ (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 6).
44. Cf. Acts 22:12; 1 Peter 2:12, 15; 3:1, 16 .
45. Καί is epexegetical (Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, 83; Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 4th ed. [Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993], 630; cf. Charles Ellicott, The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul, 5th ed. [London: Longmans, Green, 1883], 45). This interpretation has the advantage of specifying the snare or trap, which the devil lays for unsuspecting Christians.
46. Cf. 2 Timothy 2:26.
47. Ralph Earle, “1 Timothy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 11:365; Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, 83; Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 79; Thomas Lea, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 114; cf. 1 Timothy 5:14; 6:1; and Titus 2:5, 8.
48. As Kelly points out, “unsympathetic outsiders will put the most unfavourable interpretation on his slightest word or deed” (The Pastoral Epistles, 80).
49. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 218; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 440; Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 138; Victor Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 96; A. T. Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1911), 194, 197.
50. Don Baker, Beyond Forgiveness (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1984), 84; Hayford, Restoring Fallen Leaders, 44; and MacArthur, The Master’s Plan for the Church, 256.
51. The term for “prize,” βραβεῖον, also has an eschatological emphasis in Philippians 3:14, its only other occurrence in the New Testament (Peter O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 432–33; and Moisés Silva, Philippians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 202).
52. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, s.v. “τοίνυν”; and G. G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians , 3d ed., 2 vols. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), 2:856.
53. F. F. Bruce, Iand IICorinthians, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 89; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 440; and Robertson and Plummer, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 197.
54. It is not the concern of this article to judge between the two most common views of this disqualification: loss of reward or loss of salvation.
55. The precise meaning of προλαμβάνω (“entrapped”) is debated; however, the outcome of the debate is not crucial to the point of this article. See Richard Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 272, for a good overview of the debate and a resolution to the problem.
56. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 296; F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 260; and Longenecker, Galatians, 273. It is noteworthy that sexual immorality is included in this list. The adjective τινί (“any” or “some”) is not to be taken absolutely (Ronald Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 285; Bruce, Galatians, 260).
57. Paul used καταρτίζω in a similar way in 2 Corinthians 13:11 when he urged the Corinthians to “mend their ways” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, s.v. “καταρτίζω”). The verb also was used commonly as a medical term in the New Testament era to describe the setting of a dislocated or fractured limb (Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], s.v. “καταρτίζω”). In the New Testament the term is used literally to describe the mending of fishing nets (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19; the reference here, however, may be more general, referring simply to preparing the nets, i.e., cleaning, mending, and folding). In 2 Esdras 4:12–13 the term refers to the repair of the walls of Jerusalem (the Aramaic term, כְּלַל, however, means “to finish, complete” and thus the idea may be more general, referring simply to the completion of the walls). The Septuagint in Psalm 67:9 (68:10, Eng.) uses the term metaphorically to describe refreshment (cf. Ps 79:15, LXX; 1 Pet 5:10). Plutarch used the term metaphorically in a way surprisingly similar to Paul: Cato in his conversation with two philosophers argued, “It is your task to reduce this man’s swollen pride and restore [καταρτίσαι)] him to conformity with his best interests” (Cato the Younger 65.5).
58. This is confirmed by Paul’s use of the generic term ἄνθρωπος.
59. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 231; J. L. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989), 96; J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985), 122–24; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), 4:589; cf. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 80; Ellicott, The Pastoral Epistles, 83; Homer Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 180; and Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), 63–64.
60. Cyprian, Letters 15.1; 16.2; 17.2; 18.1; 19.2; 20.3; 71.2; 74.1-3, 12; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.2; Didascalia Apostolorum 2.18, 41, 43. Readmission to fellowship rather than restoration to leadership is consistently in view.
61. J. K. Parratt, “The Laying on of Hands in the New Testament,” Expository Times 80 (1969): 211, n. 5; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “χείρ,” by E. Lohse, 9:428–34; and “τίθημι,” by C. Maurer, 8:159–61; and New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “ἐπιτίθημι,” by H.-G. Schütz, 2:148–50. Eusebius dates the practice during the bishopric of Stephen around A.D. 254-57. He does add, however, that the practice was an “old-established custom,” and indicates that Stephen opposed any change in “the tradition established from the beginning” (Ecclesiastical History 7.2–3). Though these statements are suggestive, exactly what should be concluded from them is uncertain. Cyprian’s Letters, which also describe this practice, are dated between 250 and 256. The Didascalia Apostolorum also describes this practice and was composed, according to most scholars, in the early third century (David A. Fiensy, Prayers Alleged to Be Jewish: An Examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985], 19–20). It is not without significance that 2 Corinthians 2:6–11 does not mention the laying on of hands and suggests that only genuine repentance is required for the restoration of a sinner.
62. See Chrysostom, In Epistulam Primum ad Timotheum Commentarius, PG 62. 587; Theodoret, Interpretatio Epistolae I ad Timotheum, PG 82.821; cf. C. Spicq, Saint Paul Les Épîtres Pastorales, 4th rev. ed., 2 vols. (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 2:548.
63. Cf. Numbers 27:18–23; Deuteronomy 34:9; and Acts 6:6; 13:3.
64. Kelly notes, “The realization of the liability of elders to fall into misconduct and of the awful judgment which awaits them if they do underlines the importance of using extreme care and deliberation when appointing such officials” (The Pastoral Epistles, 127); cf. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 239. Fee argues that this imperative “follows naturally out of what has been said. Verse 20 indicates that some elders are sinning; verse 21 charges that their public exposure or rebuke must be carried out—impartially. Now some guidelines will be given for their replacement” (1and 2 Timothy, Titus, 131). Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 81; and J. William Fuller, “Of Elders and Triads in 1 Timothy 5:19–25, ” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 258-63. Laney’s objection that an injunction against hasty initial ordination would be misplaced is not decisive (“The qualifications and matters concerning the appointment of elders were discussed rather thoroughly in 1 Timothy 3, ” A Guide to Church Discipline, 123). Paul need not have exhausted all his instructions concerning elders in chapter 3. In fact he did not discuss their ordination there, and the immediate context of 1 Timothy 5:22 affords him an excellent opportunity to address more than their qualifications.
65. It is possible that Peter’s reinstatement to leadership was an exceptional event, requiring Jesus’ direct, personal participation.
66. This last argument assumes that Peter was treated differently from the way an elder today should be treated because the “church” was in a transitional and developmental period, lacking formal institutional structures and because he lacked the full power of the Holy Spirit now available after Pentecost.
67. John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 131–32.
68. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 150-51; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 112; Thomas Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , 2d ed. (New York: Armstrong & Son, 1886), 150; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Firstand SecondEpistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 267–68; cf. E.-B. Allo, Premire Épître aux Corinthiens, 2d ed. (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 149; J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, 6th ed., 5 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1866), 3:242; Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (London: Rivington, 1844), 236. This comparative view of Calvin’s maintains that sins such as drunkenness are sins against the body but not to the same degree as sexual immorality. Brendan Byrne (“Sinning against One’s Own Body: Paul’s Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:18, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 [1983]: 613); Fee (1 Corinthians, 262-63); Robert Gundry (Sōmain Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 72–73); Paul Jewett (Paul’s Anthropological Terms [Leiden: Brill, 1971], 261); Morris (1 Corinthians, 99); and Robertson and Plummer (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians , 127-28) also hold a comparative view, but they argue that sins such as drunkenness are sins against the body but not in the same way as sexual immorality. In their view sexual immorality is unique not in its degree of evil but in the way it strikes or is directed against the body. The interpreters advocating this position hold different views of how sexual immorality strikes the body. Morris and Gundry, for example, see it in terms of sexual immorality’s origin and purpose. Fee, Robertson and Plummer, and Jewett, on the other hand, think that sexual immorality removes one’s body from union with Christ and makes it a member of another’s body. Byrne argues that sexual immorality perverts the faculty that is meant to be the instrument of the most intimate communication between individuals. Thus by comparison all other sins are considered “outside the body.” Unlike Calvin, these interpreters do not see this text as supporting the proposal that sexual immorality is unrivaled in its moral seriousness.
69. Note the asyndeton.
70. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 261; and Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 127.
71. On the indefinite relative pronoun, see A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1933), §416; cf. Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §380.1; and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 958–59.
72. Allo, Premire Épître aux Corinthiens, 148; Byrne, “Sinning against One’s Own Body,” 613; and Fee, 1 Corinthians, 261. Some have attempted to expand the meaning of σῶμα to include “person, center of one’s being, or core of the personality.” This is unlikely for a number of reasons: (1) the close parallel in 2 Corinthians 12:2 where σῶμα is clearly corporeal; (2) its overlooking of Paul’s concern, which is to oppose the false view of the Corinthians that the physical body had no eternal significance; (3) and Paul’s reference to the stomach (1 Cor 6:13), the flesh (v. 16), and joining oneself to a prostitute (v. 16). For a fuller discussion see Gundry, Sōmain Biblical Theology, 51-80; cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 256; and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12–20, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 [1978]: 392-93. Also, σῶμα does not refer to “the body of Christ, the church,” for Paul wrote of the individual’s “own body” (v. 18c), and it lacks support from the context. As indicated above in note 68, the interpretation represented by Fee and others argues that sexual immorality is unique in the way it is directed against the body rather than in its degree of evil. Though attractive, this interpretation will not be considered in detail since it does not isolate sexual immorality as a uniquely evil sin. Though the views represented by Calvin and Fee are slightly different, both are subject to the same criticisms, and the interpretation represented by Fee is subject to at least one additional criticism: it seems overly complicated and subtle (so much so that it is even difficult to articulate), especially since Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 is clear, bold, and forthright. Paul repeatedly used short sentences (16 in just 9 verses), lack of subordination of clauses, extensive use of coordinating conjunctions (17 in just 9 verses), and the repeated use of “don’t you know.” Verse 18 contains a short crisp command, two asyndetons, and a strong inclusive statement (“every sin whatever it is…”) with a clear contrast (δέ).
73. Especially Proverbs 6:32–33.
74. See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 257-58, 262. This interpretation stresses the meaning “take away” for αἴρω: “Shall I take away the members of Christ.” But see Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, s.v. “αἴρω,” #4; and Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 111.
75. Charles Ellicott notes that “the true force of the words…is, however, thus seriously weakened” by this first option (St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians [Andover: Draper, 1889], 122).
76. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 197.
77. In short, something is either ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος or it is not. A middle ground position, in which something is considered outside the body only in comparison to something else, appears to be lacking. In biblical and extrabiblical literature the construction ἐκτός + article + genitive noun regularly denotes a literal spatial relationship. It indicates that something is located outside, away from, or apart from something else. See, for example, Exodus 9:33 and Josephus, TheAntiquities of the Jews 14.471, both of which read ἐκτὸς τῆς πόλεως (“outside the city”;) 2 Chronicles 23:14, ἐκτὸς τοῦ οἴκου (“outside the house”); 1 Maccabees 15:30, ἐκτὸς τῶν ὁρίων (“outside the borders [of Judea]”); Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1.60, ἐκτός ἐστι τοῦ παραδείσου (“outside the garden”); 3.40, τοῦ θαλάμου ἐκτὸς ([“the men’s quarters are] outside the women’s apartment).” Second Corinthians 12:2 is quite instructive. Here Paul used the exact phrase (ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος) to describe his possible out-of-body experience. In 12:3 he replaced ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος with χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος (“apart from the body”). Both phrases are contrasted with ἐν σώματι. Though Paul was unsure whether his experience included the body or took place apart from the body, he clearly understood ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος in an absolute sense.
78. For δέ as an adversative particle, see Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “δέ,” by K.-H. Pridik, 1:278–79. For δέ as an exceptive particle, see examples in Genesis 2:16–17; Exodus 12:10; Matthew 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–29; Luke 12:10; and John 1:11–12. The ὁ δέ here in 1 Corinthians 6:18 seems to be parallel to the τὸ δέ introducing verse 13c, which is adversative (Fee, 1 Corinthians, 254; Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12–20, ” 392, 394).
79. Romans 13:1, 8; 14:14; 1 Corinthians 1:14; 2:2, 11; 7:5; 8:4; 10:13; 12:3; 14:5; 15:2; 2 Corinthians 2:2; 12:5, 13; 13:5; Galatians 1:19; 6:14; Philippians 4:15; 1 Timothy 5:19. In Philippians 1:18πλήν may also signal an exception (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, s.v. “πλήν,” 1d).
80. John Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, rev. ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 67–68, 178–79; cf. Roger Omanson, “Acknowledging Paul’s Quotations,” Bible Translator 43 (1992): 201-13; and Fee, 1 Corinthians.
81. In three different letters (1 Cor 5:9–11; 6:9–20; 2 Cor 12:21), and not simply by way of general exhortation but with reference to specific cases, Paul censured their sexually immoral practices.
82. For this slogan and how it presupposes that the body is morally irrelevant, see Fee, 1 Corinthians, 255-56; Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12–20, ” 395; and Anthony Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 516-17. For the corollary see verse 13c and F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 261; cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 254.
83. The Greek version of Proverbs 20:2, which observes that one who provokes the king “sins against his own life” (ἁμαρτάνει εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν), may suggest that other sins were thought to be “against the body.” Cf. Wisdom of Sirach 10:29; 19:4.
84. Εἰς does not mean “in” or “with.” A similar expression is found in rabbinic literature suggesting that it might mean this (cf. Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch [Munich: Beck, 1965], 3:366–67); however, ἁμαρτάνω with εἰς is a common idiom in biblical Greek clearly meaning “to sin against” (Gen 20:6, 9; Exod 10:16; 1 Kings 15:18; 19:4, 5; 24:12; Prov 8:36; 20:2; Matt 18:21; Luke 15:18, 21; 17:4; Acts 25:8, and esp. 1 Cor 8:12a, b; cf. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 4.180; 7.208, 320; 10.37).
85. In 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul contrasted the phrase used here (ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος) with ἐν σώματι. It is also possible to explain the defective correspondence in 1 Corinthians 6:18 by the suggestion that Paul was refusing to play into the hands of the Corinthian libertines. Using the preposition ἐν rather than εἰς might imply that sexual immorality occurs in or with the body. To this the libertines would respond, “Of course ‘sexual immorality’ takes place in or with the body. But don’t you realize that the body is morally irrelevant?” By using εἰς, “against,” rather than ἐν, Paul directly challenged this position. It should be noted that if this suggestion is correct—and it is speculative, then the defective correspondence gives no indication of the source (whether Paul or the Corinthians) of the alleged quotation.
86. The only other occurrence in the Pauline corpus is Romans 3:25, which is widely held to be a pre-Pauline formula. On the other hand Paul frequently (64 times) used the term ἁμαρτία (e.g., Rom 4:7–8; 11:27; 1 Cor 15:3, 17; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:16; 1 Tim 5:22, 24; 2 Tim 3:6; cf. E. D. W. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1920], 436–43).
87. See note 77.
88. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 262; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 150; and Byrne, “Sinning against One’s Own Body,” 609–10.
89. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 112.
90. This is completely consistent with the context of 1 Corinthians 6:12–20.
91. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 261, 263, 265; and H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, 5th ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 144.
92. Verses 13 and 15 also indicate that the body is “for the Lord” and is a member of Christ.
93. Adultery (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22); rape (Deut 22:25); incest (Lev 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev 20:13); and bestiality (Exod 22:19; Lev 20:15–16).
94. Matthew 5:31–32; 19:3–12. The other is desertion (1 Cor 7:15). This viewpoint is of course debated; however, under most interpretations, the point concerning the seriousness of sexual sin still stands.
95. Particularly significant is the preponderance of sexual sins in the vice lists of the New Testament (1 Cor 5:9–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Gal 5:19–21; Col 3:5; 1 Tim 1:9–10; 1 Pet 4:3–4). It should be noted that “sexual immorality” heads the lists in 1 Corinthians 5:9–11; 6:9–10; Galatians 5:19–21; Colossians 3:5; 1 Peter 4:3–4.
96. See 1 Corinthians 6:9–11.
97. In 1 Timothy 1:15εἰμι ἐγώ is emphatic and the verb is in the present tense. Kelly notes, “The present, I am, deserves notice. Although his sins have been forgiven, Paul still regards himself as a sinner” (The Pastoral Epistles, 55; cf. Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, 53). Kent, in agreement with many commentators, adds, “There are no grounds for limiting the significance of ‘foremost’ nor softening the connotation of ‘sinners.’ Hence we must take Paul’s statement at face value” (The Pastoral Epistles, 89).
98. It must be remembered that these qualifications are primarily moral qualities that a man currently possesses, not simply historical statements about the past.
99. Cf. Mark Littleton, “Church Discipline: A Remedy for What Ails the Body,” Christianity Today, May 8, 1981, 32.
100. Earle, 1 Timothy, 365.
101. The theme of God being blasphemed by the pagans because of the ungodly life of His people is common in the Bible (2 Sam 12:14 [Nathan said that David’s sin gave the Lord’s enemies occasion to show contempt]; Ezek 36:22 [“It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went”]; cf. Matt 5:16; Phil 2:15–16; 1 Tim 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5; James 2:7; 1 Pet 2:12, 15; 3:1–2, 16; and 2 Pet 2:2). For an example from a secular writer see Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.81–84.
102. Cf. 2 Corinthians 2:6–7; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:20. For an unforgettable account of one local congregation’s attempt to overcome the consequences of sin, see Baker, Beyond Forgiveness.
103. Cf. Rodney Clapp, “Swaggart’s Worst Enemy,” Christianity Today, June 17, 1988, 17.