When riding the “tube,” or subway, in the United Kingdom, travelers are continually reminded by means of audio messages and visual warnings to “Mind the Gap.” It would seem very obvious that people should look where they are about to step and that stepping into the gap between the train and the platform would lead to serious injury. Yet, people still do step into the gap. Thus, there seems to be a need to continually remind commuters of the obvious.
The Knowing-Doing Gap is a concept that refers to the disparity between what we know we should do and what we actually do. This concept can be defined as having the knowledge, the skills, or the ability to accomplish something but failing to do it.
As we consider the topic of sin in the church and of choices made (or not made) by members affecting the larger body of Christ, the concept of the Knowing-Doing Gap may offer us a good starting point to join the biblical conversation.
Lesson Themes
This week’s lesson highlights three important themes:
The Dangers of Rationalizing Sin. We often disconnect ethical and moral issues from our practice and the choices we make by either ignoring the obvious or stifling our convictions in order to rationalize our behavior. Paul’s message to the Corinthians offers a good example of such behavior and contains a clear indication of how to resolve this situation.
The Biblical Basis for Marriage. The biblical concept of marriage is based on Creation theology and should offer the foundation for our reflection on the topic. The incestuous practice referenced in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and the lack of critical reflection on the issue by the Corinthian church community remind us of the reality of the Knowing-Doing Gap within the church.
Conflict Resolution. Conflict resolution among church members should be done within the church and not through the secular legal courts. Resolving conflict within the church offers the opportunity for redemptive justice and underlines the conviction that the church, the body of Christ, is capable of resolving even challenging issues.
Part II: Commentary
1. Background: Marriage and Sexual Practices: Marriage in Greco-Roman society was marked by the authority of the head of the household (usually the husband) in relation to his wife. Extended households, including several generations of family members and employees and slaves, were common. Wives usually managed the daily affairs of the household: controlling the servants and slaves, guiding the education of the children, and supervising the replenishing of storerooms.
Romans had two types of legal marriages: with or without manus (Latin: literally, “hand”). Without manus was the legal and economic authority that a father maintained over his daughter after her marriage. “In early Roman times, marriage with manus was frequent. But by the NT period, marriage without manus, where a father maintained legal and economic authority (Latin: potestas) over his married daughter, was much more common. . . . Such measures [marriage with manus] reinforced the connection of daughters to their families and could give daughters powerful allies in marriage disputes.”—Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Marriage, NT,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. K. Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), vol. 3, p. 812. Legal marriages could be entered into only by free citizens, even though funerary inscriptions show that slave couples “frequently understood themselves as married and set out to create a stable family unit” (p. 813), even without formal marriage agreements.
Jewish marriage had much in common with marriage in the Greco-Roman world. The payment of a dowry was important; marriages were usually arranged by families and created a network of extended households. Paul’s view of marriage reflects his Jewish background, even though he was not married himself.
2. The Knowing-Doing Gap: Paul is straightforward in his communication to the church at Corinth about a clear Knowing-Doing Gap in their church community. This gap was associated with sexual immorality (porneia), according to 1 Corinthians 5:1, “of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans” (ESV). The Knowing-Doing Gap is often a reflection of human frailty and sinfulness. Paul describes this condition well in Romans 7:19: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (ESV). Most of us would agree with Paul’s observation at some point in our lives. Somehow, the good that we are convinced about, or have even committed to do, is sometimes not what we choose to do. New Testament scholars have discussed the identity of the “I” in the passage in Romans 7 and have offered a number of suggestions. Neither of these interpretations will diminish or change the basic reality of the Knowing-Doing Gap in the life of the followers of Jesus. The law of God, so prevalent in Romans 7, is not sufficient to save us from ourselves and from our sin. We truly need a Savior!
What we really need is a transformation of heart that can be effectuated only by the Spirit of God. Paul affirms this reality in the powerful words of Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (ESV). When we are “in Christ Jesus” we will be safe, and transformation can begin. Overcoming this Knowing-Doing Gap requires commitment and an openness to change, for change—especially mental change and cognitive behavioral change—requires new patterns, and lots of practice. In the words of James K. A. Smith: “I can’t just think my way into virtue. . . . Laws, rules, and commands specify and articulate the good; they inform me about what I ought to do. But virtue is different: virtue isn’t acquired intellectually but affectively. Education in virtue is not like learning the Ten Commandments or memorizing Colossians 3:12–14. Education in virtue is a kind of formation, a retraining of our dispositions. ‘Learning’ virtue—becoming virtuous—is more like practicing scales on the piano than learning music theory: the goal is, in a sense, for your fingers to learn the scales so they can then play ‘naturally,’ as it were. Learning here isn’t just information acquisition; it’s more like inscribing something into the very fiber of your being.”—James K. A. Smith, You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2016), p. 18.
3. Sexual Immorality: There are few sins that generate more discussions among the faithful than sins associated with sexuality. Porneia, “sexual immorality,” is mentioned for the first time in the epistle in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and is further discussed in chapters 5–7. “In Koine Greek the word can refer to general immorality, but it was most often related to payment for prostitutes or occasionally to fornication.”—Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), p. 224.
The sexual ethics of Judaism and of the early church were based on Scripture: a heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage, rooted in Creation theology. Clearly, the citizens of Corinth had a much more lax understanding of sexual ethics—but even they would have been appalled by the sexual relationship between a man and his father’s wife. The Greek terminology used to describe the wife suggests that she was not the biological mother of the person, but his stepmother, still a serious violation of morality.
Paul’s concern, however, was the indifference of the Corinthian church to this situation. Instead of mourning this reality, Paul describes the church as “arrogant” (1 Cor. 5:2, ESV) and willing to overlook this situation. Some scholars have suggested that the person practicing this type of sexual immorality must have been very influential or rich. This situation did not call for tolerance but for decisive action.
In his letter, Paul calls the church to take swift action. The members were to “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5, ESV). This metaphoric statement refers to the expulsion of the man from the church body. The church was to confirm his own choice. As one commentary noted, “Since by his actions he had chosen to enter the realm of Satan, the decision of the church was to confirm his choice. He would be left to suffer the consequences of his evil actions”—“1 Corinthians,” in the Andrews Bible Commentary, ed. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez et al. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2022), p. 1624.
This ecclesiastic decision should be understood in a redemptive context, similar to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 18:17 when discussing conflict in the church and separation between the church and an erring member who is to become to the church “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (ESV). Such action was to be taken in order that the erring member might become the object of loving care and kind concern of the church. Then the church would be able to demonstrate that love by inviting him to repent and to become part of God’s kingdom again.
4. Church Conflict Resolution: Paul’s concern for the members of the Corinthian church also involved the way the church resolved tensions and conflicts between themselves. The fact that church members took other members to an official court was utterly impossible for Paul to understand (see 1 Cor. 6:1–8). This problem highlights the many internal conflicts and disputes the church seems to have had and the members’ lack of wisdom and godly judgment in resolving these conflicts and disputes within the “body.”
The church as a united body repeats and echoes Paul’s earlier concerns about factions and unity (1 Corinthians 3 and 4). Paul’s insistence on resolving tensions and issues internally seems to have its precedent in the Old Testament and in Jewish tradition. This precedent is rooted in the belief that God Himself was the Judge of His people (compare with 1 Sam. 24:15, Ps. 50:6, Ps. 75:7, Isa. 33:22, etc.) and of all the earth (Gen. 18:25).
Part III: Life Application
Tension and conflict in the church are not easy issues to resolve. The texts dealing with the issue of sexual immorality and how the church should resolve this problem offer the modern reader important strategies for resolving sin, tension, and conflict in our faith communities. Consider with your class the following questions:
What would you tell a friend who tells you that he struggles with doing the right thing—even though he knows what he should do?
Does the Knowing-Doing Gap have anything to do with righteousness by works? If so, why? If not, why not?
Why is it so difficult to offer forgiveness to those struggling with sexual sins?
What would be the best strategy to help those struggling with sexual sins?
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Text: 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20
Study Focus: 1 Cor. 5:1–13, 1 Cor. 6:1–13.
Introduction
When riding the “tube,” or subway, in the United Kingdom, travelers are continually reminded by means of audio messages and visual warnings to “Mind the Gap.” It would seem very obvious that people should look where they are about to step and that stepping into the gap between the train and the platform would lead to serious injury. Yet, people still do step into the gap. Thus, there seems to be a need to continually remind commuters of the obvious.
The Knowing-Doing Gap is a concept that refers to the disparity between what we know we should do and what we actually do. This concept can be defined as having the knowledge, the skills, or the ability to accomplish something but failing to do it.
As we consider the topic of sin in the church and of choices made (or not made) by members affecting the larger body of Christ, the concept of the Knowing-Doing Gap may offer us a good starting point to join the biblical conversation.
Lesson Themes
This week’s lesson highlights three important themes:
The Dangers of Rationalizing Sin. We often disconnect ethical and moral issues from our practice and the choices we make by either ignoring the obvious or stifling our convictions in order to rationalize our behavior. Paul’s message to the Corinthians offers a good example of such behavior and contains a clear indication of how to resolve this situation.
The Biblical Basis for Marriage. The biblical concept of marriage is based on Creation theology and should offer the foundation for our reflection on the topic. The incestuous practice referenced in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and the lack of critical reflection on the issue by the Corinthian church community remind us of the reality of the Knowing-Doing Gap within the church.
Conflict Resolution. Conflict resolution among church members should be done within the church and not through the secular legal courts. Resolving conflict within the church offers the opportunity for redemptive justice and underlines the conviction that the church, the body of Christ, is capable of resolving even challenging issues.
Part II: Commentary
1. Background: Marriage and Sexual Practices: Marriage in Greco-Roman society was marked by the authority of the head of the household (usually the husband) in relation to his wife. Extended households, including several generations of family members and employees and slaves, were common. Wives usually managed the daily affairs of the household: controlling the servants and slaves, guiding the education of the children, and supervising the replenishing of storerooms.
Romans had two types of legal marriages: with or without manus (Latin: literally, “hand”). Without manus was the legal and economic authority that a father maintained over his daughter after her marriage. “In early Roman times, marriage with manus was frequent. But by the NT period, marriage without manus, where a father maintained legal and economic authority (Latin: potestas) over his married daughter, was much more common. . . . Such measures [marriage with manus] reinforced the connection of daughters to their families and could give daughters powerful allies in marriage disputes.”—Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Marriage, NT,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. K. Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), vol. 3, p. 812. Legal marriages could be entered into only by free citizens, even though funerary inscriptions show that slave couples “frequently understood themselves as married and set out to create a stable family unit” (p. 813), even without formal marriage agreements.
Jewish marriage had much in common with marriage in the Greco-Roman world. The payment of a dowry was important; marriages were usually arranged by families and created a network of extended households. Paul’s view of marriage reflects his Jewish background, even though he was not married himself.
2. The Knowing-Doing Gap: Paul is straightforward in his communication to the church at Corinth about a clear Knowing-Doing Gap in their church community. This gap was associated with sexual immorality (porneia), according to 1 Corinthians 5:1, “of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans” (ESV). The Knowing-Doing Gap is often a reflection of human frailty and sinfulness. Paul describes this condition well in Romans 7:19: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (ESV). Most of us would agree with Paul’s observation at some point in our lives. Somehow, the good that we are convinced about, or have even committed to do, is sometimes not what we choose to do. New Testament scholars have discussed the identity of the “I” in the passage in Romans 7 and have offered a number of suggestions. Neither of these interpretations will diminish or change the basic reality of the Knowing-Doing Gap in the life of the followers of Jesus. The law of God, so prevalent in Romans 7, is not sufficient to save us from ourselves and from our sin. We truly need a Savior!
What we really need is a transformation of heart that can be effectuated only by the Spirit of God. Paul affirms this reality in the powerful words of Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (ESV). When we are “in Christ Jesus” we will be safe, and transformation can begin. Overcoming this Knowing-Doing Gap requires commitment and an openness to change, for change—especially mental change and cognitive behavioral change—requires new patterns, and lots of practice. In the words of James K. A. Smith: “I can’t just think my way into virtue. . . . Laws, rules, and commands specify and articulate the good; they inform me about what I ought to do. But virtue is different: virtue isn’t acquired intellectually but affectively. Education in virtue is not like learning the Ten Commandments or memorizing Colossians 3:12–14. Education in virtue is a kind of formation, a retraining of our dispositions. ‘Learning’ virtue—becoming virtuous—is more like practicing scales on the piano than learning music theory: the goal is, in a sense, for your fingers to learn the scales so they can then play ‘naturally,’ as it were. Learning here isn’t just information acquisition; it’s more like inscribing something into the very fiber of your being.”—James K. A. Smith, You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2016), p. 18.
3. Sexual Immorality: There are few sins that generate more discussions among the faithful than sins associated with sexuality. Porneia, “sexual immorality,” is mentioned for the first time in the epistle in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and is further discussed in chapters 5–7. “In Koine Greek the word can refer to general immorality, but it was most often related to payment for prostitutes or occasionally to fornication.”—Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), p. 224.
The sexual ethics of Judaism and of the early church were based on Scripture: a heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage, rooted in Creation theology. Clearly, the citizens of Corinth had a much more lax understanding of sexual ethics—but even they would have been appalled by the sexual relationship between a man and his father’s wife. The Greek terminology used to describe the wife suggests that she was not the biological mother of the person, but his stepmother, still a serious violation of morality.
Paul’s concern, however, was the indifference of the Corinthian church to this situation. Instead of mourning this reality, Paul describes the church as “arrogant” (1 Cor. 5:2, ESV) and willing to overlook this situation. Some scholars have suggested that the person practicing this type of sexual immorality must have been very influential or rich. This situation did not call for tolerance but for decisive action.
In his letter, Paul calls the church to take swift action. The members were to “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5, ESV). This metaphoric statement refers to the expulsion of the man from the church body. The church was to confirm his own choice. As one commentary noted, “Since by his actions he had chosen to enter the realm of Satan, the decision of the church was to confirm his choice. He would be left to suffer the consequences of his evil actions”—“1 Corinthians,” in the Andrews Bible Commentary, ed. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez et al. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2022), p. 1624.
This ecclesiastic decision should be understood in a redemptive context, similar to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 18:17 when discussing conflict in the church and separation between the church and an erring member who is to become to the church “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (ESV). Such action was to be taken in order that the erring member might become the object of loving care and kind concern of the church. Then the church would be able to demonstrate that love by inviting him to repent and to become part of God’s kingdom again.
4. Church Conflict Resolution: Paul’s concern for the members of the Corinthian church also involved the way the church resolved tensions and conflicts between themselves. The fact that church members took other members to an official court was utterly impossible for Paul to understand (see 1 Cor. 6:1–8). This problem highlights the many internal conflicts and disputes the church seems to have had and the members’ lack of wisdom and godly judgment in resolving these conflicts and disputes within the “body.”
The church as a united body repeats and echoes Paul’s earlier concerns about factions and unity (1 Corinthians 3 and 4). Paul’s insistence on resolving tensions and issues internally seems to have its precedent in the Old Testament and in Jewish tradition. This precedent is rooted in the belief that God Himself was the Judge of His people (compare with 1 Sam. 24:15, Ps. 50:6, Ps. 75:7, Isa. 33:22, etc.) and of all the earth (Gen. 18:25).
Part III: Life Application
Tension and conflict in the church are not easy issues to resolve. The texts dealing with the issue of sexual immorality and how the church should resolve this problem offer the modern reader important strategies for resolving sin, tension, and conflict in our faith communities. Consider with your class the following questions:
What would you tell a friend who tells you that he struggles with doing the right thing—even though he knows what he should do?
Does the Knowing-Doing Gap have anything to do with righteousness by works? If so, why? If not, why not?
Why is it so difficult to offer forgiveness to those struggling with sexual sins?
What would be the best strategy to help those struggling with sexual sins?