"Deliver such a one to Satan"

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians 1:5:1-13, he writes concerning a man in their church "that has his Father's wife."  He instructs the church to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh."  How exactly is this to be done?   The usual understanding seems to be that this speaks of a kind of excommunication, that is, removal from the Church in some way.  I'm not sure how the removal is carried out, but Paul does go on to say "not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral..." and "put away from you the evil person."  

The church was addressing the sin.  Pride is usually the reason—not wanting to admit something is wrong.  The exact nature of the man's sin is not completely clear, but I have thought the man’s father was still living and married to the stepmom, for would there need to be a mention of the stepmom, if it was just a matter of fornication (if the father was dead or divorced from her)? Either she’s still married to the father, or it’s just wrong to marry a stepmom. The Old Testament did stipulate against seeing the nakedness of a father’s wife.  But the mention of the stepmom seems to suggest the action is doubly wrong because of both adultery and the OT stipulations:  he’s not only committing adultery, but with his stepmom!

This is a bad testimony, and it needs to be dealt with by the Church.  Here we have judgment that is to be exercised.  This is not judging motives, but the actual act.

A little leaven affects the whole lump of dough.  Whether leaven signifies sin or not, it signifies how something can affect everything.  This sin will affect the progress of the church: a lowering of standards and a bad witness.

The delivering unto Satan is a curious phrase.  Connected to this is the destruction of the flesh.  Does this mean believers have a hedge built around them?  I don’t know.  Does this mean God will allow Satan to do more than usual to afflict?  Do Church elders pray that God will allow Satan to afflict more than usual?  I think it may signify that the church is to give the person up to pursue their destructive course.  “Satan” signifies this destructive course.  Romans 1 comes to mind in which God gives people up to their thinking and actions, and the result is they will receive in themselves the consequences:  "God gave them up to uncleanness...receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."  Romans 1:24-27 (1:18-32)

The destruction of the flesh does not have to mean physical death, but it can speak of the consequences for the one who pursues immorality.  The prodigal son is an example of one who suffered the consequences of the life he wanted to pursue, that after it led to his physical suffering, he returned to his father.  Another example is those in 2 Peter 2:20-22 who return to the former immorality—it is worse for them the second time.  The aim in giving them up is that through the physical consequences, they will come to their senses and want to get right with God, and thus, their “spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”  See 2 Timothy 2.24-26 where Paul writes of those who "may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil."  To deliver to Satan is to give one up to the snare of the devil, which they have chosen to give themselves over to, and through the destructive consequences, they may come to their senses, Lord willing.  Paul wrote concerning..."Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." 1 Timothy 1:20

We are to judge those in the church, that is, we are to take corrective action concerning those who continue in a sin without repentance.  With these, our relationship with them has to change, unlike with those who are not saved.  We still love them, and pray for them, but we can’t carry on as nothing is wrong.  

The Gospels anticipated an Inter-advent period

I believe Jesus' priority at his first coming was to Israel.  

Ideally, if Israel would have responded positively to Christ at his first coming, they could have gone to proclaim him to the Gentiles.  

Of course, Christ's rejection by Israel--as foretold in the Scripture: the "stone the builders rejected"-- is figured into as to how both Jew and Gentile would be saved: by his death on the cross.  

He had to come and present himself so that Israel could either accept or reject him:  the extent of the rejection (being the greater number of Jews and Jewish leaders) would figure into God's purpose for the inter-advent period (as indicated in the parables of the "mystery of the kingdom").  

What Jesus said to the Canaanite woman expressed his priority to Israel, and his *dog reference, I believe was just an analogy that one's children are fed before one's dog, but the woman acknowledged that and responded she'll accept whatever he has left over (just like even the dogs eat what falls from the master's table).  

The Gospels anticipated an inter-advent period, though it could have been fulfilled by the remnant of believing Jews, God chose to create a new people for that period of Jew and Gentile (the "church")--which wouldn't be fully grasped (understood) right away.  

Israel as a nation would be judged and not be restored as a nation until after the Second advent.  

Things in the Gospels that involve the inter-advent period apply to the gentile-Jew assembly (Great Commission, baptism, Lord's Supper, parables of the mysteries of the kingdom), since national, geographical Israel is not the people for God's purpose at this present time.   

*²¹ Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed."

²³ But He answered her not a word.

And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
²⁴ But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
²⁵ Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
²⁶ But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
²⁷ And she said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
²⁸ Then Jesus answered and said to her, "O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matthew 15:21-28

Confirming a covenant with many in Daniel 9.27

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate Daniel 9:27

The "many" doesn't have to be just Israel, it could be the nations of the middle east, for example.  

It really isn't until we see the AOD that the antichrist or son of perdition is revealed--it's not in the making or confirming a covenant in which he is revealed.

But I would expect there to be something in place for sacrifices before that can happen in Jerusalem.  

I did a study in Daniel about the bringing to an end of sacrifices and the setting up of the AOD, whether by Antiochus or antichrist, and it always speaks of the same kind of thing.  I expect to see something in place so this can happen, even if we don't know when the 70th Week begins or what starts it.

The one who confirms the covenant also brings to an end the sacrifice and offering. 

Daniel 8:11-12 says, "by him the daily is taken away...an army was given over to the little horn to oppose the daily sacrifices...". Even if this only speaks of Antiochus, the taking away of sacrifices is in connection with the temple service in some way.  

I'm just saying this because this is the same kind of thing in Daniel 9:27, and the one who does that in that verse is the same who confirms the covenant.  

I find it difficult to see Jesus in view there, as the one who makes the covenant, because it is Daniel 9:27 that Jesus references when he speaks of the AOD standing in the holy place, quoting the Septuagint.  Preterists and a few futurists see Jesus as the "Prince to come" and the one who confirms a covenant with many.  

Looking for the fulfillment in prophecy about the abomination of desolation (AOD) from the perspective that the Jewish Temple and sacrifices have no relevance after the crucifixion of Christ and the change of people for God's purposes (from the nation of Israel to the Gentile-Jew Assembly) is understandable.  Likewise, it's difficult to understand the need for sacrifices during the Millennium as revealed in Ezekiel 40-48--which is why some will say that vision was an ideal never to be realized.

But don't  even some (or most) Preterists see a more literal fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the AOD in the temple in the events of AD70, some 40 years after the crucifixion and the establishment of a new people (the Gentile-Jew Assembly)? It's just that Futurists believe that prophesied event is yet future and not in the past, and that Temple which was destroyed in AD 70 will be rebuilt to some degree for this event to happen.

I think it should be considered that the Animal sacrifices dealt with sin on a temporal, theocratic level for Israel.  They were not to be offered up just anywhere.
Justification was by faith in God and the coming Redeemer, for "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 

The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was Divine judgment on the nation because of her rejection of Messiah--because they "did not know the time of your visitation."
The destruction of the temple removed that place of God's special presence from among that people for his purpose.

The temple and the sacrifices are not of any necessity to us believing Gentles and Jews because they only had a purpose or function in the theocracy of national Israel.   If Ezekiel 40-48 isn't written off as some ideal that could have been fulfilled after the Babylonians captivity but will never be realized, then the temple and sacrifices could have a temporal type of role with dealing with sin with reference to the functioning of the theocracy of national Israel.  This role doesn't and never did provide justification of the sinner before God, only for their continuation in the land as a special people for God's purpose.

Isn't it an argument of the Preterist that the AOD can't involve a future temple and sacrifices because of the work of the cross?

But doesn't even the Preterist believes the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled in the Temple in the events of AD70, about 40 years after the Cross of Christ and the beginning of the new people, the Gentile-Jew Assembly?

Why can't the futurist believe in the same kind of thing, but over 1900 years later? 

The problem of Suffering

Why doesn’t God intervene and keep suffering from happening?  How do you explain suffering?

The explanation that it is a consequence of free will is objected to since free won’t cause natural disasters.  Whose free will caused a Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands, complains Dr. Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar and writer who apostatized from Christianity over among other things, the problem of human suffering?

Ehrman argues that the Bible gives inconsistent reasons as to why people suffer or should not suffer.  Israel suffered because of the evils that they did. But what about Job?  What evil did he do to suffer so horribly?  And what kind of answer did God give for it?

If suffering is due to free will, and if there will be free will in heaven with no suffering, why couldn’t God have created such a world with both free will and no suffering?   Couldn’t God have created a world without natural disasters?  

Not liking the world we have doesn’t prove that God didn't create it.  But one may say suffering is inconsistently explained or not adequately explained in the Bible, and therefore, the God of the Bible is to be questioned as to how he is revealed or as to his very existence.

I believe the Bible gives reasons for suffering, but there is a definite unfairness to suffering. 

I believe free will does figure into the reasons for suffering, though it may not be one’s free will choices that are behind one’s particular suffering. Suffering could be due to another person's or being's free will.  

I prefer to speak of free will as being a “measure" of free will, because obviously, we can not do just anything we imagine to do.   The measure we now have can be different than the measure we will have in the world to come.  

The world that now exists has been subjected to natural disaster as a consequence of Adam’s free will, and it could be that natural disaster has been amplified following the destruction of the world in the days of Noah.   God could have created a different world,  but he created this world in which we have a measure of free will, and such free will as it is, involves suffering from nature and other free will creatures, both human and angelic.  

I believe God has designed creation so that nature mostly takes it course.  God may not intervene to stop nature in its destructive course.  God may not intervene to stop man in his evil.  He may not intervene to warn someone of the consequences of His actions.   Did God intervene to stop King David from having an affair with Bathsheba or from plotting the murder of Uriah?  Did God intervene to stop King Herod from killing the children that were 2 years and younger in his attempt to kill the young Jesus?  When one suffers, it may be due to his own actions or the actions of others or by the destructiveness of nature, either in his or her own body or the planet.  

We can know the general reason for suffering from Scripture, but we may not know the specific reason for suffering apart from further special revelation.  Try reading Job chapter one with verses 6 through 12 missing.

I think we need to keep in mind that since sin entered the world, death entered the world, first in a spiritual sense, being alienated from God, but then in a physical sense, as stated in the curse to Adam, for God said, "For dust you are, and to dust you will return," Genesis 3.19. And the first couple were driven from the garden of Eden, lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever.

Everyone is appointed to death and judgment, Hebrews 9:27.  How and when death comes is not necessarily fair.  It can come because of one’s own actions or from another's actions or by nature, internally or externally.   Everyone dies, some sooner than others, some in more tragic ways than others.    It's not fair.   

Job’s 10 children all died at once—very unfair, and at such a young age--all very tragic.  God allowed it, but it was a result of persecution—from Satan, who accused Job of only fearing God because God protected and blessed him. Therefore, God allowed Satan to persecute Job so horribly to show that Satan was wrong.  Poor Job didn’t know the why of it. Job’s 3 friends thought Job's personal sin was the cause, but Job denied it. Of course, we have the Book of Job that tells us what was going on.    

I think one should understand that the causes of personal suffering don’t apply the same when looking at the blessings and curses as seen in the book of Deuteronomy given to a corporate, national entity like Israel, for they were promised blessing in the land if they obeyed God, but that applied to Israel as a corporate entity, not to individuals who obey God.  Individuals who obey God will be persecuted by those who don’t,  but Israel as a distinct body of people would have dwelt safely in the land of Promise if they obeyed God.   But the nation did not obey God, and so the northern Kingdom of 10 tribes were taken into captivity by the Assyrians in the 8th century, and the southern Kingdom of Judah and Benjamin was taken captive in the 7th and 6th  centuries by the Babylonians.

I’m thinking that the kind of and source of suffering we have in this life is consistent with the measure of free will that we have.  Though one could still argue that God could have created a world in which we have this measure of free will and yet suffer less, I would counter that God in his wisdom chose this present world because of the measure of free will that we have.   

But concerning the kind of natural disasters we have, it could be that the world was a very different one before the flood of Noah.  The fact that some people lived to be almost 1000 years old reveals that it was a different world.  The natural disasters we now have were probably not in Noah's world, and if that world had the same measure of free will as we have, it still reached a degree of evil that God had to destroy it.   Genesis chapter 6 says that the wickedness of man was so great in the earth that God was grieved he created man and determined to destroy him, except for Noah and his family.  

Maybe the natural disasters that came after the flood serve to keep evil in check to a greater degree, to slow down the evil course of the world towards another Divine judgment.  There still will be a lot of believers on earth when Christ comes again, and so in that sense it won't be entirely like it was in the days of Noah when the world perished with a flood.  But it will be as in the days of Noah when the Lord comes again, being the "Day of the Lord," in which multitudes will be unprepared for the direct judgment of God on earth.

The consequence of sin—Adam’s sin—was death, and death will come: suffering is often the course we take because of that consequence; it just doesn’t come fairly to all.  Suffering may precede death, and those close to the ones who die suffer as well.   The book of James says that "Life is but a vapor." You should not merely seek the temporal, because it is passing away.  

I tend to think God rarely intervenes with physical deliverance, though we seem to pray for physical deliverance the most (like from illness).  His intervention, in response to prayer, would seem more often of a spiritual nature: God gives grace to endure. But it is true that certain suffering can be overwhelming, and its hard to respond in a God-honoring-way without some relief.  Job did a lot of complaining in his suffering, but his 3 friends made accusations against him, and so they were in bigger trouble with God than Job.  Remember that Job lost all 10 of his children at once, along with all his thousands of livestock and servants (except for a few who escaped), and his body was covered with boils.

One complaint some might make against God is that He is like the Cosmic bully, with Him saying to someone like Job “I’m God and you’re just a peon.”  But He is God, the creator of all things, and whatever befalls us in this life can be totally and fully replaced in the world to come:  the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed in us, according to Paul in Romans 8.   

Another complaint is that we shouldn’t have to be second guessing God.  The problem is that we don’t get special revelation from God concerning a specific case of personal suffering.  A general reason for suffering doesn't usual seem to suffice.   Suffering could be due to personal sin.  God could directly bring suffering on a person for sin, as we read about in the Corinthian church--some were sick and dying because of their mistreatment of one-another. David's child through Bathsheba would die.  Sin can have a cause and effect built into it: the alcoholic can suffer in a number of ways due to his alcoholism.  But again, like in the case of Job, his reason for suffering was not revealed to him or his friends.  And when he suffers so much so quickly, one would think something definitely abnormal is going on.  But no one at the time knew the reason for it.   Again, in Job’s case, it was suffering by Divine permission to allow Satan to persecute Job, to silence Satan's accusations against Job, that he was in a kind of quid pro quo relationship with God. 

James Reitman in his commentary on Job and Ecclesiastes writes, “In describing Job’s futile appeal to his friends for compassion and his plea to God to relieve his suffering, the author [of Job] shows that neither compassion from others nor relief from God are guaranteed in this life, so that his readers might look to God in the face of unexplained suffering with greater tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty and greater compassion for others.”  “Unlocking Wisdom—Forming Agents of God in the House of Mourning:  A Canonical-linguistic exposition of the books of Job and Ecclesiastes,” by James Reitman, p.84, 2008, 21st Century Press

The free-will-complaint is said not to work in the case where 100s of thousands die in a Tsunami.  Whose free will caused that?  The answer that it was Adam's free will probably would not suffice the complaint, but it did start with Adam, and maybe the evil reached in Noah's day showed the need for a greater degree of difficulty from nature, to slow down the advance and pervasiveness of evil.  

Romans 8 speaks of the creation being subjected to futility.  We are part of this creation and groan along with it.  This futility of creation could be the “all things” that Paul speaks of as “working together for good.”   Some natural disasters catch one by surprise, and they may die from it.  Others can be escaped by careful planning.  A dam breaking can result in many deaths.   Maybe one shouldn't build his house in its path.  Famine brings death, but sometimes bad government makes it more likely when they interfere with the distribution of aid.  God not intervening allows for other things to come into play, such as people determining to make better choices, or such as providing opportunity to help others.   Suffering can teach mankind the consequences of sin.   Suffering may even cause some to turn to the true God.