The Evangelical Universalist Forum

II Thessalonians 1:8-9

I can see your point that the usual mode of operation of actual Satan is not to save the person’s spirit. Turning the man over to Satan here, then, in 1 Corinthians 5:5, could be a metaphor for allowing the man to be immersed in and consumed by self-generated depravity, some of which was on display while the man was a member of the Corinthian church.

Paul uses the same type of language in 1 Timothy 1:20.

Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.”

In the 1 Corinthians 5:5 passage,

I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,”

Paul arranged this consuming immersion in depravity by instructing the church to sever all ties with this man and thus to let him live without that strong, potentially positive, but to that time, ineffective force in his life. (Note that this instruction–apparently–occurs in the last part of 1 Corinthians 5:13, “. . . REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." This instruction to the church to remove the man would make little sense if the man were to be killed as part of Paul’s turning him over to Satan.) After the man was removed from the church, he lived totally with his depravity–with no counter from the church–until he realized the truth of his situation. That was the start of his repentance and led him to the sorrowful state that Paul refers to later (if he indeed does). The man’s welcome back to the church (if this man is indeed the one referred to later) furthered his continued repentance until he was free from this depravity, a depravity that was eventually recognized by the man only after he was immersed totally in it, i.e., only after he was turned over to Satan.

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Emoticons/goodpost.gif [size=150]Lancia![/size]

Paidion,

Thanks!

Obviously the two ideas are not mutually exclusive, since I myself agreed there was an excommunication. :unamused: I even talked about how excom’ing the guy is itself evidence, in several ways, that Paul meant for the congregation not to consider his case hopeless.

Consequently, going on to discuss the excommunication I already acknowledged does not count against Paul expecting the SSG (and possibly Hym and Alex) to die from being handed over to Satan.

But say it is a metaphor (which I seem to recall also allowing): being immersed in depravity is not something which in itself has any inherent tendency to destroy a person’s sinful propensities, no more than Satan attack only the sinful propensity. The prodigal son doesn’t repent of his life of whoring away his father’s money until he has been reduced by painful starvation to eating the leftovers of swine, and “joining” himself to the owner of the pigs. :open_mouth: (A euphamism often overlooked, but part of the shock value of the situation to a rigorous Jew no less than literally living with swine: there being no way surely the father would accept him back now.)

Until the evil passes a threshold of inconvenience in its results, the SSG would think being immersed in depravity was amenable! The phrase is much more likely to be a polite way of talking about being cursed with a painful and likely fatal result of his sins. Then being cut off from the church would be meaningful to the SSG; so would his horrific pain be explained if 2 Cor’s pity and reconciliation refers to him. So would the term, olethron, synch better with Paul’s OT citations of prophetic expectations of what will happen to people olethron’d by God (whether directly by divine power or indirectly by pagan armies).

I see so much in your reply that suggests we agree even more than you acknowledge!

I agree that “being immersed in depravity is not something which in itself has any inherent tendency to destroy a person’s sinful propensities.” I also agree that “Until the evil passes a threshold of inconvenience in its results, the SSG would think being immersed in depravity was amenable.” The prodigal son’s depravity passed that threshold of inconvenience through circumstances unique to his case. Perhaps Paul saw that immersion in depravity would indeed cause the SSG to pass that threshold of inconvenience through circumstances unique to his case, too, even if it does not inherently or necessarily do that in all other cases. I mean if we are ready to say that Paul had the power to place an effective curse on someone, is it not as likely, or even more likely, that Paul had the power of perception sufficient to judge that an immersion in depravity would cause the SSG to pass the threshold of inconvenience?

But, despite that, I like your suggestion that there was a curse involved. I do have a question about a conclusion you drew, though. You said, “The phrase is much more likely to be a polite way of talking about being cursed with a painful and likely fatal result of his sins,” followed by “Then being cut off from the church would be meaningful to the SSG.” How exactly does being cursed with a painful and likely fatal result of his sins make being cut off from the church more meaningful to the SSG any more than would immersion in depravity, which itself could cause pain and death, despite superficial and temporary pleasure?

Just a quicke question. What does SSG mean?

I think we are going to have to wait for a definitive answer from Jason on this one because he was the first to use the abbreviation in this thread. I used it because he used it to describe the sexually deviant man who is the reason for Paul’s “deliver to Satan” message in 1 Corinthians 5:5.

But SSG is known to mean “super stud guy.”

Oh. I thought it meant “sad, sick gigolo”.

Step-mum sleeping guy

Just a quick question - what does ‘quicke’ mean? :wink:

Indeed, “the Step-mom Sleeping Guy”. :wink: I’d use an actual name for him if Paul gave one, but since he doesn’t and that’s the final straw for Paul, I go with that for a humorous convenience.

I’ll have to get back to the rest of the thread later this afternoon, if possible. I think we’re pretty much in agreement about the underlying concepts; whether Paul expected the SSG to die or not is, to me, fairly minor.

Death by veneral disease (named after Venus) would be a result of immersion in depravity, so I’m not distinguishing the two categories.

But anyway, the difference is that the church, unlike society at large, had an active reputation for merciful acceptance and treatment of people whose ills would be feared and rejected by society. Back before he became a Christian, sociologist Rodney Stark, studying why and how Christianity survived and thrived under a few centuries of rejection and persecution, inferred one reason being that they not only took better care of each other medically (leading to a couple of sharp population spikes after Empire wide calamities, since Christians didn’t die off as much from those), but also took better care of non-Christians, helping to socially offset tendencies to persecute them.

Consequently, any socially revolting disease suffered by the SSG (not necessarily veneral, but that would be thematically appropriate) would give him strongly positive reasons to appreciate the fellowship he had lost.

It might be also topically relevant that, in a general resurrection of the good into transformed unperishing bodies, and of those who are still doing evil things into bodies still perishing (though now kept alive despite the perishing nature of their bodies), all impenitent rebels in the Day of the Lord to come would be in much the same position as the SSG to the church. By the same token, just as it will be important to the salvation of the impentient that the mature flock joins the Good Shepherd in ministering to the least of His flock, it would be important for the Corinthian church, and for St. Paul himself, to do their duty and kick into gear for ministering to the SSG once his condition had advanced (even if, this being before the general resurrection, he still eventually dies from it. But if not, great!) The perfected Church won’t (presumably) have to be chivvied out by the Holy Spirit to minister to the impenitents suffering from fondling their sins, but the Corinthian church and even the often-prickly St. Paul might lag more than they should, and so Paul might have to get them (including himself) up and going to help the SSG – if 2 Cor refers back to that situation.

Isaiah 4, however (getting back to the main topic a bit more :wink: ), shows the same concept the other way around: those who don’t survive (in some fashion) seek reconciliation, in their misery, with the the righteous who did survive the coming of YHWH in the Day of the Lord, and so are cleaned of their filth by YHWH with the spirit of crisis (exactly the same term in Greek used by Paul for the judgment at 2 Thess 1) and the spirit of burning.

Yes, it seems that both a curse and an immersion in depravity can make being cut off from the church more meaningful. Thanks for the thorough explanation.

I just don’t understand why so much is made of the SSG being cut off from the church. He was cut off out of love so that he might repent. Satan didn’t destroy the SSG by giving him an early death. The SSG repented, was forgiven, and restored to the church. End of story.

Agreed.

At least it wasn’t a stupid question :confused: Thanks for all the earlier info Jason and co re the passage in 2 Thes.

So much is made out of it due to (1) the SSG not being clearly the guy whom Paul is recommending be restored in 2 Cor (nor does his story clearly have a happy ending even if 2 Cor is included – we don’t know what happened with the SSG afterward, whether he accepted the offer or even whether he lived or died after accepting the offer), and;

(2) because Paul strongly contrasts two expectations: the SSG’s sarx being olethron’d by Satan, using a term Paul elsewhere connects directly to people being physically killed; and the SSG’s spirit being saved in the Day of the Lord to come.

The two stories aren’t mutually exclusive, but do require Paul to be wrong (though in a good way) about when he expects the salvation to happen and wrong (in a good way) about what he expects to happen before the salvation.

But the key point is that Paul can expect someone to be olethron’d (even by Satan, though with the authoritative permission of God – through an apostle in this case), and yet still be saved in the same Day of the Lord Paul is talking about other evildoers being olethron’d in 2 Thess 1:8-9, even with eonian olethroning.

Could you not compare SSG being handed over to Satan to Job being handed over to Satan in Job 2:6? It’s different circumstances of course; SSG man is obviously not righteous and is being handed over to Satan as some sort of remedial punishment, whereas Job is ‘blameless and upright’ and seems to be being handed over to Satan more for Satan’s benefit than his own. At the same time, there is some sort of sanctification within Job, shown most clearly in the first six verses of chapter 42.

Could the phrase “hand over to Satan” be a figure of speech? Such as we might say “leaving someone to their own devices”? I just wonder if we are being a bit too literal over this question? :unamused:

Good question. Didn’t AE Knoch partner with someone who wrote a book on figures of speach?

This gets my vote too… I think we might be on a ** similar page **. :sunglasses: