Today tolerance is seen as a virtue.  That it is so, is simply a product of a world view that excludes absolutes.  Where truth can be individual, there is no Truth, therefore all is tolerable because all is fabricated and therefore of no value.  It is the lot of humankind to  be prone to deception.  It was no different in the early church.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: a man is sleeping with his father’s wife.  And you are proud!  Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?  (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)

Toleration is not a Godly word; indeed, it does not even appear in the passage written in Koine Greek, the concept is implied.  Young’s Literal Translation has this

 Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations as that one hath the wife of the father!

There is no name, even amongst pagans, for the trespass this man committed by possessing his father’s wife, in other words, his step-mother.  (The text leaves open whether the woman was widowed, but it is possible her husband, the man’s father was still alive.)

Paul generalises this transgression as πορνεία porneia (Strong’s 4202), which is variously translated as fornication (AV) sexual immorality (NIV) and whoredom (YLT); but figuratively it means ‘idolatry’ thereby subsuming it to any behaviour that expressly flouts of God’s ways and purposes.

It is a measure of Paul’s concern that he takes exception to this and dedicates the entire fifth chapter to reproving the church of Corinth over their failings regarding this specific individual.  Yet his rebuke is also relevant to the modern church, especially in the western world, because at the core of the issue, Paul is condemning cultural assimilation.

Today’s culture is defined as ‘post-modern’.  It is characteristic of this world-view to laud tolerance.  A tolerant person is paean of liberality.  Indeed, in a world-view where one can hold one’s one truth and self-define morality, one necessarily must be tolerant; furthermore, respect is rated more highly than truth – so one might say: ‘I don’t believe in God but I respect that fact that you do’ or ‘I do not respect the institution of marriage but I’m happy for you to have an exclusive relationship.’

Of course, men and woman making up their own rules is idolatry, as it inevitably puts self to the fore, above God and all else.  God is intolerant of such presumption and proscribes it.  The first of the ten commandments is:

 You shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3)

When the Israelites reached the promised land of Canaan, God told their first Moses then Joshua to cleanse the land of their evil and he says why:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.  Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.  Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.  (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)

And Joshua obeyed:

So, Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.  (Joshua 10:40)

This is complete intolerance and, seen through the corrupted lens of human morality,  equates to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

For the benefit of his people alive today, between the two advents of the Christ, Jesus leaves a helper, the Holy Spirit, who protects against the defilement of the world, so no earthly cleansing is called for right now – but it is coming.  Rather, there is a call to be ‘in’ the world.  To be amongst the idolaters.

Jesus prays for his disciples thus:

My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.  They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.  Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.  As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.  For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.  (John 17:15-18)

When calling for intolerance, then, the subject is the believer not the non-believer, as Paul also clarifies to Corinth:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case, you would have to leave this world.  But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

Modern Christians are no different to those of Corinth by preferring to interpret and glorify themselves by modifying God’s requirements.  Paul is scandalised that not only did the Corinthian church include such a prideful and errant man, but that they boasted of their tolerance (ibid 5:6).  He likens this to a yeast infection, using the analogy of leaven (a common metaphor for sin in the new testament).

Paul prescribes the cure based on the Passover custom for the Feast of the Unleavened Bread – discarding the old yeast.

So, when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, (ibid 5:4-5a)

Harsh words – at first hearing!  Now the modern church does not follow this as a rule.  Mostly sin is ignored and not dealt with.  When on the rare occasion there is an attempt to address blatant sinfulness, the argument against that is offered (on a range of issues) is that what was once sin is sin no longer, contending that God’s word is no longer culturally appropriate – this often in the same breath as quoting ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever’ (Hebrews 13.8).

If challenged, the church says that love does not look like intolerance and rejection.  In short, this is unloving!

But the real issue here is what does God intend.  Viewed through the lens of Scripture, which is the only sure way to see through His eyes, what does love look like in this instance?  The reason for rejecting and disassociating from the flagrant sinner is in part to protect the church from ‘contamination’ (and that is very similar to cleansing of Israel).  But Paul explains it is also to protect the sinner himself.   Handing the fornicator over to Satan, is actually for his eternal good:

 so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. (ibid 5:5b)

While humankind seeks to resolve matters temporally, God looks to eternal salvation.  Yet Paul teaches that by tolerating both the sin and the sinner, the church actually jeopardises souls.

When any say ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, they must love as God loves.  His love is built upon perfect justice – and that foundation is made humanly possible in Christ alone.

Therefore, those that would condemn God as inciting Joshua to genocide cannot dare to judge Him.  In addition, humans also lack eternal perspective.  The evil of the Canaanites included child sacrifice, what man or woman can say how many souls were saved by God’s foreclosure on their evil culture, let alone that of future lives of countless children?

But those circumstances do not apply today; however, there is a contemporary problem in that some Christians do display intolerance, but not as Paul specified:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?  God will judge those outside. (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

Christians may not to judge those who do not profess Christ.   Whether the issue is sexual in nature, say promiscuity, homosexuality or, in the case Paul cites, incest, or any other behaviour, it is not our business to comment on individuals, let alone condemn.  The Christian shall speak out against injustice but their primary role is to tell to all the Gospel.

Moreover, those claiming to be a follower of Christ who has blatantly sinning and is correctly expelled from the church must be welcomed back if they repent.  They must be  forgiven.  Jesus says:

‘If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying “I repent,” you must forgive them.’  (Luke 17:3-4)

Intolerance of individuals is confined to one specific circumstance alone, the blatant, unrepentant sinner who claims to be part of the body of Christ.  Intolerance in any other circumstances is not Godly – but none are required to be merely tolerant.

In fact, much more is demanded of Christians than tolerance.  And at no point is any follower released from the commandment ‘to love your neighbour as yourself’ (Matthew 22:39); and within the church, Jesus raises the bar even higher using his love as the standard:

A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’ (John 13:34-35)

This, then, is part of the Christian witness to the unbelieving world.  In the light of Jesus’ new commandment, taking steps to expel unrepentant sinners may seem contradictory, yet the church must act in any case.