Original Meaning

HERE BEGINS THE second major topic Paul addresses in response to the oral reports he has received about the Corinthian church. He deals with this problem more briefly than the overarching problem of divisions in the church (1:10–4:21). Still, chapters 5–6 may be seen as a larger, loosely connected unit structured in an ABA pattern that discusses sexual sin (5:1–13), lawsuits (6:1–11) and sexual sin again (6:12–20).

Common to all three of these sections is the manifestation of the libertine or hedonistic wing of the church which is flaunting its freedom in Christ. This group depreciates the significance of the physical world and exaggerates the arrival of all of the blessings of the coming age. Worse still, the church refuses properly to monitor and judge its most sinful members. As such, chapter 5 ties back in with the end of chapter 4 with its repeated references to the Corinthians’ arrogance (cf. 4:18–19 with 5:2). Paul’s discussion falls naturally into three parts: a judgment pronounced (vv. 1–5), a rationale explained (vv. 6–8) and a misunderstanding corrected (vv. 9–13).

A horrible state of affairs in the Corinthian church has captured Paul’s attention. “Reported” in verse 1 is literally “heard.” We do not know how widely the news had traveled, but it had at least reached Paul. “Sexual immorality” translates the Greek porneia, the most general of all terms for sexual sin. In this context, however, it is clear that the sin is a matter of incest. If the man involved were one of the faction leaders or patrons in the church, one might well understand why people were reluctant to take action against him, and why Paul was so upset.

“Has” suggests an ongoing sexual relationship; “father’s wife,” that the woman is not the man’s mother but his stepmother. She may have been considerably younger than her husband and hence attractive to his son. If the son was a patron, then he was wealthy, and the liaison could have led to significant financial benefit for the woman. It may well be that the father had died, and that his estate had passed to his son rather than his wife. Whether or not the son had legally married the woman is impossible to determine.1 This kind of incest was strictly forbidden in Jewish law (Lev. 18:8). Despite the general moral laxity of the Greco-Roman world, this kind of incest remained one form of sexual sin that was relatively rare and widely condemned there too.2

The church’s reaction to this affair was as bad or worse than the affair itself. Instead of grieving over sin in their midst,3 they were actually smug over their newfound, “enlightened” tolerance as Christians (v. 2). Paul recoils in horror. They must rather remove this man from their midst (“fellowship”). That no mention is made of removing the woman suggests she was not a church member to begin with.

In verses 3–4, Paul asserts his authority to pronounce judgment on the situation and in so doing to reflect the power and authority of Christ Jesus himself. Although physically absent, his thoughts were ever with them, and by means of this letter they knew his intentions and desires. “In the name of the Lord Jesus” begins verse 4 in the Greek and could also modify either “passed judgment” or “the one who did this” in verse 3. If the last of these is accepted, the problem in Corinth takes on even more horrifying proportions: the man has justified his sin by appealing to the authority of Jesus, presumably referring to his freedom in Christ. But the sentence is too convoluted in the Greek to know for sure.4

Precisely what Paul commands the Corinthians to do in verse 5 remains hotly disputed. All agree that it at least involves excommunication or disfellowshipping. A dominant modern view has seen Paul envisioning the physical death of the man. Perhaps he had some severe sexually transmitted disease, or perhaps Paul assumed that God would punish him more directly as he had other Corinthians (cf. 11:30) and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11). “Hand over to Satan” would thus refer to the death of his body (cf. NIV margin) and would explain why Paul then jumps ahead to Judgment Day: the severe discipline is to prevent the man from committing full-fledged apostasy and to ensure that he still will be saved in eternity.

On the other hand, the dominant perspective in the early church, now being revived in a number of recent studies of this passage, seems preferable. The Greek reads literally, “so that his flesh may be destroyed.” But when Paul contrasts flesh and spirit, he usually does not refer to body versus soul but to the old versus new natures of a believer (or to the individual as oriented toward sin versus oriented toward God).5 In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul describes how he handed two believers over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme, so presumably they did not die. And a good case can be made for seeing the repentant sinner of 2 Corinthians 2:5–11; 7:8–13 as this same individual addressed in 1 Corinthians 5.6 In either event, Paul’s purpose clearly remains remedial.7

Verses 6–8 appeal to the Jews’ practice of purifying their homes and their temple from all leavened bread prior to the Passover feast (Ex. 12:15). Paul applies this imagery to the moral purity God requires of his new house/temple—the church.8 Citing in verse 6 what may have been a popular proverb (cf. Gal. 5:9), he makes it clear that serious sin can infect the whole congregation. Thinking of Passover reminds him of Christ as our perfect sacrifice (v. 7), imagery which the writer to the Hebrews will later elaborate. Jesus’ atonement was not intended to free us to sin but to liberate us from sin. As he likes to do in many of his letters, Paul thus calls his audience to “become what they are”—to act according to the way God has already chosen to consider them in Christ (cf. esp. Rom. 6–8). This means putting away all forms of evil (“malice” and “wickedness” are both general terms covering the waterfront of sin) and behaving in ways that genuinely conform to God’s true standards (v. 8).

Verses 9–13 close this section by clarifying an apparent misunderstanding, or possibly even a deliberate misrepresentation, of Paul’s previous letter (on which, see Introduction, p. 22). The verbs beginning verses 9 and 11 are simple past tense and should probably both be translated “I wrote,” referring to the contents of that letter. When Paul had told them not to associate (literally, “mix up together with”) flagrantly immoral people (v. 9), he was referring to professing Christians, not avowed unbelievers.

To drive home this point, Paul generalizes and lists several serious sins in addition to sexual immorality (vv. 10–11). “The greedy and swindlers” should be taken together to refer to those who were seizing “someone else’s property by force,”9 perhaps anticipating the problem of 6:1–11. “Idolaters” is Paul’s general term for all who worship false gods. “Slanderer” should be translated “reviler” and may refer particularly to those who oppose and mock God’s duly ordained authorities. “Drunkard,” like the other terms in these lists, implies one whose lifestyle is consistently characterized by such behavior. Not only must the Corinthians remove from their fellowship people who repeatedly refuse to repent of their sins, they must not even associate with them in intimate social gatherings outside the church, such as table fellowship.

Verses 12–13 explain the logic of the commands of verses 9–11. The church’s jurisdiction is restricted to its own membership. God will take care of unbelievers’ sins; indeed, their fate will be bad enough that Christians ought not add to their agony but seek instead to lead them to Christ. So Paul concludes where he began, reminding the Corinthians to expel the incestuous offender. “Man,” however, does not appear in the Greek, so Paul may be generalizing here to call them to cast out from their lives anyone or anything that is notoriously and persistently wicked.

Bridging Contexts

THE DOMINANT QUESTION that emerges from this chapter is the issue of how and when to practice church discipline in settings other than first-century Corinth.10 Matthew 18:15–18 outlines the preliminary steps: private conversation, discussion in the presence of witnesses, and public confrontation by the entire church. As here in 1 Corinthians, the final action must never be taken unilaterally by a handful of church leaders but in agreement with the church body as a whole. In each case, the goal is to resolve the problem without having to proceed further. But if nothing else works, excommunication is the last step that Jesus commands. Has Paul assumed that everything else has already been tried in Corinth? Or, perhaps more plausibly, does he realize in view of the entire congregation’s attitude that such preliminary steps will prove impossible and/or unsuccessful? On any view of verse 5, however, the rehabilitative purpose of the discipline remains unquestioned.

If the man’s death is not in view, then how is he subsequently to be handled? Jesus says “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). Although Jesus socialized with such people, orthodox Jews did not, and in context Jesus’ remark clearly refers to ostracism. But even other Jews did seek to win such people over to their points of view. The Christian equivalent would seem to be to treat an excommunicant as an unbeliever (while not claiming that he or she necessarily is). In other words, such people should not be permitted to take the Lord’s Supper or participate in any other Christian gatherings that are reserved for believers only. But they presumably could be allowed to sit in a service in which unbelievers are welcome, so long as they are not treated as if nothing had happened.

Friends and fellow church members should continue to reach out and urge repentance just as they do in evangelizing non-Christians. But intimate social intercourse cannot continue unchanged. Interpersonal relationships will inevitably be strained so long as the individual refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing (cf. the balance enjoined in 2 Thess. 3:14–15). The whole point in disfellowshipping is to so shock the persons involved by the severity of the church’s disapproval that they are stimulated to change their behavior, after less radical action has left them unaffected. If excommunication in certain cultures is not likely to have this effect, then alternate forms of discipline may have to be sought.11

For what sins should such potentially severe measures of discipline be initiated? Incest was clearly an extreme example in first-century Corinth. Verses 10–11 are similarly characterized by very serious offenses for those claiming to be Christians. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14–15, Paul warns us to shun the idle who refuse to work but disrupt believers’ lives instead. In Titus 3:10 and Romans 16:17, the factious are to be avoided. It is as if Paul says of those who would try to split the church that they should “split” instead! First Corinthians 5:6–8 offers some implicit guidelines: church discipline is needed when a given sin carries with it the serious possibility of corrupting the entire congregation. Notwithstanding all of the biblical ideals for church unity, including those Paul has put forward in chapters 1–4, purity retains an even higher priority.12 But “purity” has too often been the alleged basis for churches splitting over much lesser matters. Chapters 1–4 surely caution us against appealing to this rationale except in the most serious of situations.

Turning now to a look at some of the specific details of this chapter in sequence, we see first in verse 1 a concern for the reputation of the church in its society. If even the pagans of Paul’s day usually found incest so offensive, then to tolerate it among Christians would seriously compromise the church’s witness. If the offender was a leader in the church, then additional questions about the discipline and restoration of fallen pastors or elders are raised. Because of their prominent roles of influence, a good case can be made for saying that the discipline of such leaders should be more firm and the period of testing prior to restoration more lengthy than for other church members.13

Paul’s commands to exercise judgment (vv. 2–5, 7, 13b) offer important qualifications of his instruction in 2:15 and 4:3, on which see comments there (pp. 68, 93–94). Regardless of the nature of this judgment, however, it remains consistent with the rest of early Christian teaching and practice. Church discipline was always originally intended (though never guaranteed) to be remedial, and not merely or even primarily punitive.14 Contact, therefore, cannot be entirely broken with the offending individuals, even if “business as usual” cannot continue either.

The positive moral antidote to sin is purity, described in verse 8 as “sincerity and truth.” These are not broad, all-encompassing terms for Christian virtue in quite the same way as “malice and wickedness” are for vice. Rather they remind us that hypocrisy damages the credibility of the gospel (hence the need for sincerity), but that sincerity alone is inadequate to save a person if one’s trust is placed in that which is unreliable (hence the need for truth). Yet in Philippians 1:15–18, Paul rejoices that the gospel is preached even by those with wrong motives, whereas in Philippians 3:2–11 he lambastes those who sincerely promote heresy. In other words, sincerity and truth are not of equal value. If only one can be preserved, then we must cling to the truth.

The inversion of the Corinthians’ standards in verses 9–13 has profound implications for the church’s role in society. Its first responsibility is always to model God’s countercultural standards before a watching world rather than trying to impose those standards on society as a whole. In the Roman empire, Christians had little opportunity to influence the laws of the land. In democracies, believers have both the right and the responsibility as citizens to promote their ideological and ethical convictions through legal processes. But they have no unique mandate as the church to try to “Christianize” nations, though they may and ought to speak prophetically to society about the moral issues of their day. On the other hand, Paul’s words caution strongly against those forms of separatism that leave the church unable to function as “salt” and “light” in the surrounding world.15

Verse 11 leaves open the question of the reality of the professions of faith of persistently immoral people. Doubtless some are true believers in serious rebellion against their Lord, but Paul probably suspects that many may merely be masquerading as Christians, especially in view of 6:9–10, on which see our comments below (p. 121). The specific sins mentioned particularly characterized pagan Corinth in the mid-first century, so evidence for a transformed lifestyle was significantly missing among those who consistently practiced such vice.

Many will continue to view the whole notion of church discipline, and certainly excommunication, as repulsive and unloving. Yet such people fail to grasp God’s utter repugnance to sin and his infinitely perfect standards for holiness. Further, we must avoid a cheap grace that refuses to force professing believers to face up to the destructive consequences of grossly immoral behavior. They are not only damaging themselves by allowing sin to go unchecked but also destroying the church.

Not surprisingly, the church has regularly grown the fastest and become the healthiest where loving but firm church discipline has been implemented. A chain of quotations from William Barclay rings true in almost every society and captures the balance of Paul’s teaching in this chapter: “To shut our eyes to offenses is not always a kind thing to do; it may be damaging;” “it has been said that our one security against sin lies in our being shocked at it;” yet “discipline should never be exercised for the satisfaction of the person who exercises it, but always for the mending of the person who has sinned and for the sake of the Church.”16

Contemporary Significance

LARGE SECTIONS OF the contemporary church virtually ignore 1 Corinthians 5 altogether. Doubtless this is a reaction against the horrible excesses and abuse of this chapter in past eras, such as in the Roman Catholics’ Spanish Inquisition, in Luther’s and Zwingli’s excommunication of Anabaptists, or in recent Protestant fundamentalist legalism against all kinds of morally neutral practices. But to refuse to engage in church discipline, including excommunication if necessary, is to overreact so wildly as to jeopardize seriously the health of the church.

Ours is an age, tragically, in which even church leaders commit sexual sin or defraud their congregations, at times with virtual impunity. And if a period of discipline and restoration is established, they may refuse to agree to their church’s terms. In still other cases, such a period of time seems woefully inadequate to demonstrate a genuine and lasting change of heart and behavior. Some Christian leaders even endorse a philosophy of restoring fallen leaders to ministry as soon as possible in the name of grace and forgiveness! But forgiveness and restoration to fellowship do not automatically carry with them the privilege of pastoring or leading a congregation. The criteria for overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1–13, including marital faithfulness and wholesome family life, are best understood as attributes which currently characterize one’s life and have done so over a long enough period of time that they may be assumed to be enduring character traits (cf. esp. verse 10).17

The biggest problem, of course, with replicating the effect of biblical disfellowshipping today lies with the element of ostracism originally involved. The few churches that do excommunicate the defiantly immoral usually watch those individuals go down the road, or move to a new town, and join another church that pays little or no attention to the reasons they left their previous congregation. Churches even hire pastoral staff who have been let go from other ministries for unethical or illegal behavior without ever asking enough questions of the right people to find out that such behavior had occurred. Becoming a church or staff member should require that the church involved learn enough about an individual’s past to determine if he or she is running away from problems left unaddressed. Sensitive but frank cooperation and networking between congregations becomes crucial if the original impact of “shunning” is to have any possibility of being reproduced in our transient world.18

Conversely, for people who simply want to be left alone by Christian friends and acquaintances, so that they are not forced to own up to their sins, loving but persistent personal contacts may be necessary to confront them with their inappropriate behavior.19 One pastor has found that “temporary suspensions” from certain activities with required service in other facets of church life have proved a more effective form of discipline.20

At this point, important legal questions immediately clamor for attention. Ours is an age of rampant litigation, and church members who have been excluded from congregations, or even disciplined to lesser degrees, often turn around and sue those churches, compounding their prior sin with flagrant defiance of 1 Corinthians 6:1–11. In an age when many social forces discriminate against evangelical Christians, judges and juries are all too eager to award substantial sums of money to individuals who sue their former churches, often leaving those congregations in severe financial straits.21

Still, there are legal ways in which churches can and must practice biblically mandated discipline.22 Constitutions or bylaws must clearly state the procedures of discipline, potential members must read and agree to them, a condition for membership may include signing forms waiving the right to sue the church, and then the congregation must carefully and consistently implement its policies. The laws in any given state must be carefully studied and followed to determine clergy’s privileges of confidentiality as well as their responsibilities to disclose illegal behavior to local authorities.

The specific problem of incest that first stimulated chapter 5 has once again emerged as a scandal in Christian circles today. In some places its frequency inside the church rivals its commonness outside. It scarcely remains the one social taboo that almost no one practices, though in many non-Western cultures that is still true. Nevertheless, even our relativistic secular world often finds incest offensive in ways it does not with other sexual sin, particularly when minors are involved. The incongruity of it occurring in Christian circles and the serious need for loving but firm discipline when it occurs thus remain great.23

For many moderns, the word immoral is a synonym for sexually sinful. We need Paul’s reminder of verses 10–11, therefore, that the biblical definition of the term covers the full range of humanity’s sinful behavior, and that disciplinary action is equally incumbent in situations of financial mismanagement and fraud, flagrant heresy, repeated abusive and addictive behaviors, prolonged rebellion against authority, and a variety of other serious social sins. That Paul can lump all these together in his various “vice lists” should caution us against elevating sexual sin to a level of severity higher than these others, as we often do, or against overlooking the nonsexual sins listed as somehow more trivial.

That “greedy” makes it to the list in verse 11, separate from “swindlers” (contrast v. 10), provides an abrupt reminder of how far removed from biblical ideals our modern world often is. “Mammon” (money and all other material resources) remains the biggest competitor with God for human allegiance (cf. Matt. 6:19–34; Luke 16:1–13; 1 Tim. 6:3–10). What a perversion of God’s priorities when wealthy Westerners spend exorbitant sums weekly to service personal and church debts, lavishing millions of dollars on buildings, utilities, food, and largely inward-looking ministries, while millions of people are dying of physical and spiritual malnutrition around the globe! This is not to say that every mortgage or church building program is sinful. But there are numerous creative alternatives that are both less costly and more responsible which should at least be considered much more than they are.24 As Prior points out, “if we were to ask virtually any Third World Christian what is the most common and destructive sin in the Western church, the answer would invariably be ‘covetousness’.” Again, “from the perspective of Third World Christians the church in the West today is equally guilty, not just of moral laxity, but of smugness. There is a culpable blindness about the seriousness of certain sins, coupled with a perverse refusal to recognize the close link between this sinful compromise and ineffectiveness with the gospel.”25

The idolatries of our age extend beyond materialism, however (vv. 10–11). New Age syncretism, wholesale alliance with secular models of business and management, aberrant church growth or counseling techniques, extreme forms of “power religion” (requiring miraculous signs and wonders), trusting in government to do what the church should be doing, and a host of other misplaced allegiances sap our congregations of genuine, Bible-based spiritual vitality.26 As for “slanderers” (v. 11), Christian circles are rife with rebellion against authority, misrepresentation of opponents’ views, and character assassination or defamation.

Paul’s overall contrast between association with non-Christian sinners and nonassociation with unrepentant Christian sinners has been almost exactly inverted in massive segments of the contemporary church. We promote all kinds of separatism via Christian alternatives to secular institutions and activities. Thus we can comfortably spend most all of our lives in Christian schools, church meetings, Christian sporting leagues, church-based aerobics; in short, in fellowship groups for virtually any significant human activity, so that we need not interact in any intimate way at all with non-Christians!27 Indeed, most American adults who convert to Christianity are so overwhelmed with new acquaintances and activities that within a few years they know virtually no non-Christians well enough to engage in any meaningful kind of friendship evangelism.28

In sharp contrast stands Tony Campolo’s more biblical vision of God’s kingdom as a birthday-party for prostitutes thrown in an all-night diner at 3:00 A.M.29 So too numerous inner-city ministries around our country and world are seeking to house the homeless, find jobs for the unemployed, offer affordable health care to the indigent, provide alternative recreation for kids in gang-ridden neighborhoods, all in the name of Jesus, with a view to bringing the light of the gospel to the most visibly sin-filled parts of our society. But of course the suburbs and rural areas contain their full range of problems as well, with equally needy and unsaved persons. No matter where we live then, Christian fellowship should be a periodic retreat from and revitalization of our regular involvement with the immoral and unbelieving in our world, and not vice versa. And those with the extra obstacle of working full time in Christian organizations must redouble their efforts at spending time away from work with non-Christian neighbors, volunteering in public schools and civic organizations, and the like.

Verses 12–13 also contrast sharply with the prevailing political agenda of the so-called religious right. We have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to Christianize society through antiabortion legislation, campaigning for prayer in the public schools, electing politicians who most closely match our evangelically correct political scorecards, often at the expense of devoting the bulk of our energies to modeling Christian ethics and countercultural lifestyles in our personal lives and in our local churches.

Ephesians 3:4–11 reminds us of the enormous evangelistic potential of a Christian community that integrates people who have little or no human reason for getting together, much less getting along with each other, completely apart from any overt political or social activism. A holy congregation, which graciously cleans its own house to preserve its purity but which does not expect the same standards of obedience from the unregenerate, can profoundly impact an unholy world. To quote Prior once more, “The world is waiting to see such a church, a church which takes sin seriously, which enjoys forgiveness fully, which in its time of gathering together combines joyful celebration with an awesome sense of God’s immediacy and authority.” But “that will never happen if we refuse to come into costly, compassionate contact with men and women of the world.”30