Eating With Sinners

[Kemosloby]

I do notice what Paul is saying there though it seems to me rather backwards to treat "non-brothers" better than your own brother. We are all sinners which requires great compassion across all human beings, even those with different beliefs according to Jesus. Paul doesn't appear to have the forgiveness and compassion that Jesus espoused.

Is there truly any person on earth that just doesn't go on sinning, which is the whole point of forgiveness?

It's a slippery slope. Which is why a written code cannot work. At some point the "grace of God" can become a "license for immorality", one is good, the other is bad.

Jude 1:4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

 

[Deeje]

I do notice what Paul is saying there though it seems to me rather backwards to treat "non-brothers" better than your own brother.

Its all about the intent. Jesus did not associate with sinners because he liked their company or actions. He wanted to give them an opportunity to change course and leave the sinful behavior behind. His admonition was "go and sin no more".

In Acts 3, Peter had just healed a lame man and the Jews were amazed.

"And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:12-19 ESV)

Obviously Peter was giving a witness about the power of God's spirit to heal physically, but the highlighted part of the passage has great meaning. Acting in ignorance is one thing, but willful and deliberate sin is inexcusable. Repentance requires a turning back from a sinful way of life. This is how we demonstrate our love for God and our willingness to obey his commands. A momentary lapse in judgment is not the same as willful disobedience. Sins are "blotted out" only if the repentance is genuine. God can read hearts, so we can't fool him or presume on his mercy.

We are all sinners which requires great compassion across all human beings, even those with different beliefs according to Jesus. Paul doesn't appear to have the forgiveness and compassion that Jesus espoused.

If you notice in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul said that the congregation shepherds were to "judge" those "inside" the congregation.....this means that willful sin has become known and the shepherds are under obligation from God to call the sinner out and judge whether what has become known is true or not. They will pray for and about the erring one, but they cannot allow sentiment to cloud their judgment, nor can they allow a willful sinner to remain in the congregation in good standing, because "a little leaven ferments the whole lump."

Hebrews 13:17:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."

The shepherds are accountable to God for needed discipline. (Hebrews 12:5-6) They were to expel that one after many attempts to lovingly lead them to repent......the unrepentant one was not permitted back into the congregation until repentance was demonstrated. The discipline is not cruel, but loving. Do we not discipline our own children because we love them?
Genuine repentance comes from the heart and is the very basis for forgiveness. Jesus' compassion was not a license to sin, presuming on God's forgiveness.

If you remember the parable of the prodigal son....? The father made no attempt to contact the erring son whilst he was living a debauched life and squandering his inheritance, but once he came to his senses, and humbly returned with a contrite heart, the father ran to meet him. The return had to come from a learned lesson, and painful and all as it was, the lesson led him back to his Father....who welcomed him back with open arms and tears of joy.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Is it OK to eat with sinners according to scripture? Does Paul contradict Jesus regarding eating with sinners?

Mark 2
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

1 Corinthians 5
9 I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; 10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: 11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

It is unless they are hypocritically pretending to be Christians

The Bible makes a point of showing God's regard toward the repentance of Ahab, Manasseh and the Ninevites.... the two perhaps worse kings or close to it and a Natzi like people... but both repented and God honored their repentance... point made... repent !!

Not to mention the prophet told to marry a prostitute and who love to her even though she cheated on him... that's grace.
see --> Hosea and his family, a portrait of grace

 

[idav]

Its all about the intent. Jesus did not associate with sinners because he liked their company or actions. He wanted to given them an opportunity to change course and leave the sinful behavior behind. His admonition was "go and sin no more".

In Acts 3, Peter had just healed a lame man and the Jews were amazed.

"And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:12-19 ESV)

Obviously Peter was giving a witness about the power of God's spirit to heal physically, but the highlighted part of the passage has great meaning. Acting in ignorance is one thing, but willful and deliberate sin is inexcusable. Repentance requires a turning back from a sinful way of life. This is how we demonstrate our love for God and our willingness to obey his commands. A momentary lapse in judgment is not the same as willful disobedience. Sins are "blotted out" only if the repentance is genuine. God can read hearts, so we can't fool him or presume on his mercy.



If you notice in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul said that the congregation shepherds were to "judge" those "inside" the congregation.....this means that willful sin has become known and the shepherds are under obligation from God to call the sinner out and judge whether what has become known is true or not. They will pray for and about the erring one, but they cannot allow sentiment to cloud their judgment, nor can they allow a willful sinner to remain in the congregation in good standing, because "a little leaven ferments the whole lump."

Hebrews 13:17:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."

The shepherds are accountable to God for needed discipline. (Hebrews 12:5-6) They were to expel that one after many attempts to lovingly lead them to repent......the unrepentant one was not permitted back into the congregation until repentance was demonstrated. The discipline is not cruel, but loving. Do we not discipline our own children because we love them?
Genuine repentance comes from the heart and is the very basis for forgiveness. Jesus' compassion was not a license to sin, presuming on God's forgiveness.

If you remember the parable of the prodigal son....? The father made no attempt to contact the erring son whilst he was living a debauched life and squandering his inheritance, but once he came to his senses, and humbly returned with a contrite heart, the father ran to meet him. The return had to come from a learned lesson, and painful and all as it was, the lesson led him back to his Father....who welcomed him back with open arms and tears of joy.

A thorough explanation, appreciated. There is a slight caveat that I see here in that forgiveness isn't a one time chance, so that love and compassion should always be the first objective. A good example you bring up with the prodigal son, a son that if taking Pauls advice, the son should be admonished and not let back in, but forgiveness appears to extend passed all that. I suppose judging isn't explicitly forbidden in Matthew 7 but rather a warning that you will be given the forgiveness that you give others. I get the whole, "sin no more", "many who say lord lord" but that is also a warning for folks who fail to be christ-like in opening our hearts to sinners since all are sinners.

@Kemosloby suggests that last part is a slippery slope which makes sense, but I'm not a grace type of believer and whole heartedly believe that being born in spirit will reflect a change in the heart that is outwardly visible, however I do not believe that means we stop being of the carnal mind, at least this can't be completely possible. It is part of the growth, more so for some than others I imagine.

To illustrate Paul in Romans 8 says if your of the spirit you leave the carnal mind, which makes sense as I stated the change in heart but just before that we see an admission of the real struggle that is part of being human in chapter 7.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Is it OK to eat with sinners? Well the Bible says everyone has sinned. So if you eat with anyone, you are eating with sinners. And even if you only eat by yourselfm you are also a sinner so you are still eating with a sinner.

 

[Glaurung]

Since God is love, and conscious torment in hell forever is not loving, I must reject the notion. It is not a teaching that Jews believed. The destiny of man according to the OT was "life or death" not "heaven or hell".

I know what the JWs believe, and I do not mean to debate it here. In any case it's not relevant to the OP.

But I will say this. God is loving but he is also just, as such sin must be redressed. Annihilating the sinner isn't a redress of sin. Secondly, God does not take away his gifts. He loves everyone who he has created, even those who reject him ultimately. It because God loves us that I find the idea of annihilation far more repulsive than Hell.

Be that as it may, I will not be able to sway you to the mainstream view. So we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

On this we agree. God's standards must be our standards. If we love God, we will hate sin. If our flesh is weak and overpowers us, genuine, heartfelt repentance is the only position from which forgiveness can come. It is covered by the blood of Christ.

And I suspect this is the reason so many deeply object to Christianity. So many just cannot accept the moral reality of God.

 

[idav]

Is it OK to eat with sinners? Well the Bible says everyone has sinned. So if you eat with anyone, you are eating with sinners. And even if you only eat by yourselfm you are also a sinner so you are still eating with a sinner.

Good point, if one believes in the bible one can't easily dismiss Romans 3:23. It doesn't appear that it suddenly becomes not true after being "spiritually circumcised" Colossians 2:11. Can we eat with ourself, classic.

King James Bible
Romans 3 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[Katzpur]

Jeesh, if we couldn't eat with sinners, we'd all have to eat alone!

 

[Deeje]

There is a slight caveat that I see here in that forgiveness isn't a one time chance, so that love and compassion should always be the first objective. A good example you bring up with the prodigal son, a son that if taking Pauls advice, the son should be admonished and not let back in, but forgiveness appears to extend passed all that.

How do you see that? Paul's advice is to discipline with a view to leading the erring one to repentance. He says nothing about not letting them back in, but only if they are unrepentant that they should get that memo from the whole congregation. It might make them rethink their course. If Just a shepherd admonishes them, it can be fobbed off, but if the whole family reinforces the expulsion, that is a whole different ball game.

Paul went on to say...."For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him."
If repentance is shown and the erring one is reinstated in the congregation, then all are admonished to accept them back with love, just as God does.

I suppose judging isn't explicitly forbidden in Matthew 7 but rather a warning that you will be given the forgiveness that you give others. I get the whole, "sin no more", "many who say lord lord" but that is also a warning for folks who fail to be christ-like in opening our hearts to sinners since all are sinners.

As I said, its the intent. If you understand what "eating with" people meant to Jews in the first century, it was an act of brotherly hospitality. An occasion to share upbuilding conversation and spiritual interests. One who ate with sinners was viewed as sharing in their sin, which is why the religious leaders stumbled at Jesus.
Understanding that he was sent exclusively to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" means that he especially sought out those who were cast aside as unworthy by the Pharisees. Jesus came to unburden those ones and refresh them, offering them hope of something better. We, as Christ's disciples are to go to to all with the message of the kingdom (Matthew 10:11-15, 28:19-20)....it is what Jesus commanded. We are never to judge a person as unworthy...only God can do that.
The judging done by the shepherds is for discipline not for unworthiness of forgiveness. They are God's sheep and they will answer to him for any neglect.

@Kemosloby suggests that last part is a slippery slope which makes sense, but I'm not a grace type of believer and whole heartedly believe that being born in spirit will reflect a change in the heart that is outwardly visible, however I do not believe that means we stop being of the carnal mind, at least this can't be completely possible. It is part of the growth, more so for some than others I imagine.

To illustrate Paul in Romans 8 says if your of the spirit you leave the carnal mind, which makes sense as I stated the change in heart but just before that we see an admission of the real struggle that is part of being human in chapter 7.[/QUOTE]

Paul recorded his own daily struggle with the dictates of sinful flesh.
Sin is an inheritance for all of us as descendants of Adam, but it can be bridled if we truly love God enough to develop a deep aversion for what God hates. We would not choose to "eat with" (have fellowship) with those who hate God or who show no regard for his moral laws.

King David was inspired to write....
"Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies."

Strong words, but we get the message. Those who willfully and deliberately sin are not showing love for God.
They are showing only love of self. We can control the carnal flesh with a spiritual mind. No one said it was going to be easy.

 

[Deeje]

I know what the JWs believe, and I do not mean to debate it here. In any case it's not relevant to the OP.

But I will say this. God is loving but he is also just, as such sin must be redressed. Annihilating the sinner isn't a redress of sin.

The way I see it is that every punishment that God administered under the law was always in keeping with the severity of the crime. Those who committed capital offenses, were put to death after a fair trial. The death penalty was implemented to make sure that the guilty one did not re-offend and that the crime was justly recompensed.

Penalties for other crimes were designed to compensate the victim and act as a deterrent for further crime. It was always administered with a view to correction of the offender.
Death was the highest penalty under the law....there was no authorized torture inflicted on anyone for the sake of it, nor was there a prison system in ancient Israel. An offender could be stoned to death as punishment, which today seems a bit barbaric, but they were different times with a different mindset. Capital punishment was carried out without mercy, especially if the guilty party planned the crime.

The main thing for the rest was the rehabilitation of the offender. How does hell ever rehabilitate anyone? How is God's justice served if one can never repent and turn from his bad course? How is it just to serve an eternal penalty for a relatively few short years of sin?
We were born in sin through no fault on our part, so why would God inflict eternal torment for something that is not our fault.
God told his people to choose between life and death....not heaven or hell.

Secondly, God does not take away his gifts. He loves everyone who he has created, even those who reject him ultimately. It because God loves us that I find the idea of annihilation far more repulsive than Hell.

Well, you see I think the opposite is true for all the reasons I just explained. It does not serve God's perfect justice because the punishment does not fit the crime. There is no room for repentance or rehabilitation. Why would a just God want to keep people in existence, only to torture them forever. Hasn't he got better things to do?

I also do not believe that God loves humankind if he can inflict eternal pain on those who reject him and with no way to escape. God is about forgiveness for those who repent, but for the unrepentant, there is no point in keeping them alive. Everlasting life is promosed only to the righteous, but even the unrighteous are resurrected by Jesus. All come forth from the same place. (John 5:28-29)

Be that as it may, I will not be able to sway you to the mainstream view. So we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

At least on that we can agree.

And I suspect this is the reason so many deeply object to Christianity. So many just cannot accept the moral reality of God.

I guess some reject the cruelty they discern in such an objectionable punishment. The God I know is not a cruel fiend, even to willful sinners.
He will simply terminate them from existence as unworthy to retain a precious gift. God is the giver of life and he can take it away if he deems the recipient doesn't appreciate the gift.

Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

 

[psychoslice]

I would hate to eat with anyone who thought I was sinner, I would see them as up themselves, or self righteous, horrible !!.

 

[idav]

How do you see that? Paul's advice is to discipline with a view to leading the erring one to repentance. He says nothing about not letting them back in, but only if they are unrepentant that they should get that memo from the whole congregation. It might make them rethink their course. If Just a shepherd admonishes them, it can be fobbed off, but if the whole family reinforces the expulsion, that is a whole different ball game.

Paul went on to say...."For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him."
If repentance is shown and the erring one is reinstated in the congregation, then all are admonished to accept them back with love, just as God does.

This majority should be the whole body of christ believers and not a particular church, the bible was reaching out to all walks of life. There isn't really supposed to be a looking down on people we are all equals, all are brothers as you note here regarding "eating with" being brotherly.
Matthew 10:24-25
"24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!"

As I said, its the intent. If you understand what "eating with" people meant to Jews in the first century, it was an act of brotherly hospitality. An occasion to share upbuilding conversation and spiritual interests. One who ate with sinners was viewed as sharing in their sin, which is why the religious leaders stumbled at Jesus.
Understanding that he was sent exclusively to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" means that he especially sought out those who were cast aside as unworthy by the Pharisees. Jesus came to unburden those ones and refresh them, offering them hope of something better. We, as Christ's disciples are to go to to all with the message of the kingdom (Matthew 10:11-15, 28:19-20)....it is what Jesus commanded. We are never to judge a person as unworthy...only God can do that.
The judging done by the shepherds is for discipline not for unworthiness of forgiveness. They are God's sheep and they will answer to him for any neglect.

It occurs to me that Paul sounds more like the Pharisee type of Jew saying to judge people if they are unworthy but your saying something opposite here by use of verses from Matthew.

Paul recorded his own daily struggle with the dictates of sinful flesh.
Sin is an inheritance for all of us as descendants of Adam, but it can be bridled if we truly love God enough to develop a deep aversion for what God hates. We would not choose to "eat with" (have fellowship) with those who hate God or who show no regard for his moral laws.

Yet Jesus chose to eat with sinners. It wasn't that the Pharisees were calling them so, Jesus didn't argue that they were sinners but said its what he is there to do.

King David was inspired to write....
"Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies."

Jesus said all the law, including that of the OT is summed up by love of God and love of the neighbor. Jesus did not teach hatred even towards enemies.

Strong words, but we get the message. Those who willfully and deliberately sin are not showing love for God.
They are showing only love of self. We can control the carnal flesh with a spiritual mind. No one said it was going to be easy.

I agree with this last part, love for self is the opposite of love for others, to see oneself as equal, even lesser than those is what Christ taught, which Christ exemplified in every aspect of his life even washing the apostles feet truly showing the master being a servant, to sinners no less.

 

[idav]

I would hate to eat with anyone who thought I was sinner, I would see them as up themselves, or self righteous, horrible !!.

I eat with animals. True story.

 

[psychoslice]

I eat with animals. True story.

Yes far better than self righteous Christians.

 

[idav]

Yes far better than self righteous Christians.

We are sinners cause we are animals. Don't tell anyone I said that.

 

[psychoslice]

We are sinners cause we are animals. Don't tell anyone I said that.

Ha, yes an because we are animals we shouldn't be judged, do we judge other animals ? lol.

 

[idav]

Ha, yes an because we are animals we shouldn't be judged, do we judge other animals ? lol.

I know I do, other animals are least vindictive and less conniving compared to humans. It really does take a human brain to have such a capacity for evil, because we should know better. Thats kind of the problem.

 

[psychoslice]

I know I do, other animals are least vindictive and less conniving compared to humans. It really does take a human brain to have such a capacity for evil, because we should know better. Thats kind of the problem.

Is there such thing as evil, like it really means anything that goes against our freedom, but in truth it means nothing.

 

[idav]

Is there such thing as evil, like it really means anything that goes against our freedom, but in truth it means nothing.

Good and evil are real when you have the capacity to conceptualize the ramifications and can empathize about it.

 

[psychoslice]

Good and evil are real when you have the capacity to conceptualize the ramifications and can empathize about it.

No, that is from your emotions, in truth there is no such thing.