1 Corinthians 5
OGC**Butler’s Comments
Chapter Five THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE
IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:**
What was the immorality being practiced in this instance in the Corinthian church?
How could Christians be arrogant about that?
Wasn-’t Paul’s instruction too severe to do any good for the sinners?
Does all sin in the church act like leaven?
What should the Christian’s relationship be to immoral people outside the church?
APPLICATIONS:
Church membership and association with Christian people does not necessarily guarantee immunity from the grossest and most perverted forms of sin.
There are sins so destructive of social fibre that even the heathen are appalled at them.
What is even more appalling is that the church may take an attitude of sophisticated arrogance or indifference toward the sins which heathens abhor!
The proper attitude of church members toward flagrant and perverted sin by one of its members is not arrogance, indifference, gossip, titillation or self-righteous apathy, but mournful discipline.
The spiritual authority of the apostolic revelation to guide the church in matters of discipline is as equally viable in the New Testament epistles as it would be if the apostles were present in the body.
God may allow Satan to hurt those whom the church excommunicates in order to motivate them, if possible, to repent (destroy the flesh).
Impenitent sin is like yeast. It permeates and influences the whole community of the redeemed unless it is purged out of the church.
The whole Christian life is symbolized by the holy-days and feasts of the Mosaic covenantespecially by the Passover. The church could learn a great deal about its call to holiness and sanctification by studying these great Israelite festivals.
The Christian community cannot celebrate the Christian life in a manner pleasing to God if it allows flagrant, impenitent sinners to continue in its fellowship.
God’s demand for sanctification and holiness by church members does not mean they are to withdraw completely from the world into monasteries and convents. Christians must have contact with the world but not conformity to it.
But toward those who are called brothers in Christ, if they continue in immorality, Christians are not even to have contactsocially or religiously!
While the church is not responsible to judge and punish the immoral or criminal people outside the church, it is clearly commanded by apostolic order to judge and discipline the immoral within the church.
The drastic measures ordered by the apostles concerning Christian discipline are designed first for the reclamation of the sinner; second for the integrity of Christ’s holy church.
Paul was as harsh with the Corinthian church for its arrogance and apathy, as he was with the perverted immorality of the sinning man. For the church to do nothing about persistent immorality is as sinful as to do the immoral act!
APPREHENSIONS:
Why are sexual relationships between immediate members of a family wrong?
Is Paul correct in saying that incest was not even found among pagans?
What does Paul mean by saying the Corinthian Christians were arrogant?
What would Paul expect the church to do if they followed his instructions and removed the one who had done this sin among them?
How could Paul be absent from Corinth in the body but present with them in spirit to the extent that he would be judging the man?
Why did Paul equate excommunication with delivering someone to Satan?
What did Paul expect to be the result of delivering this man to Satan?
What is destruction of the flesh?
Why does Paul liken the Christian life to the Passover feast?
What is sincerity?
Why would Paul say it was all right for Christians to associate with the immoral men of this world and not all right to associate with immoral people who bear the name of brethren?
Is sexual sin the only sin demanding non-association when found in one bearing the name of a brother? What others? Does the church follow this apostolic doctrine?
How do you reconcile Paul’s command here for Christians to judge one another, and Jesus-’ command (Matthew 7:1 ff.) not to judge one another?
A SPECIAL BRIEF ON CHURCH DISCIPLINE
For if the message declared by angels (the Old Testament law) was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? Hebrews 2:2-3
A.
Causes for discipline in the New Testament.
Refusal to repent of a wrongdoing to a brother, Matthew 18:15 ff.
Being the instigator of dissensions and difficulties in the church, Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10-11
Laziness in personal life, 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Preaching false doctrine, Romans 16:17-18; 2 John 1:9-11
Immorality in a member, 1 Corinthians 5:1-7
Anyone who is greedy, an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or thief, 1 Corinthians 5:11 (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
B.
Purpose of discipline
To save the sinning member, 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 2:1-11; Galatians 6:1-10; Matthew 18:15; James 5:19-20; Jude 1:22
To maintain the honor and authority of Jesus Christ
To preserve the purity and reputation of the church before the world (not absolute, for that is impossible in this world). When the church is compared to the world, it must be different! The church must not tolerate flagrant, impenitent sinfulness in any member.
C.
Method of discipline
By expression (teaching) and repression (disfellowshiping)
First, go to the brother in personal counsel (Galatians 6:1; Romans 15:1; Matthew 18:15). It is divisive and schismatic to go to anyone else first.
This failing, take with you one or two elders so that evidence of sin and impenitence may be established by witnesses (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:1).
This failing, a meeting of the church should meditate the problem and make a decision as a congregation. If the offender refuses to comply with the congregational decision, he should be disfellowshiped, excommunicated, driven out, not even socialized with, having nothing to do with him (1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 1:10-11).
D.
Manner of discipline
Gentleness and humility must always characterize administration of any discipline (Galatians 6:1 ff.; Colossians 3:12-13; 1 Timothy 5:22, etc.)
According to the guidelines of scripture
Firmly, faithfully, without partiality, steadily and constantly
With wisdom and sound judgment; with clear thinking controlling one’s emotions.
**Applebury’s Comments
CHAPTER FIVE**
Analysis
A.
Paul now considers the dereliction of the church in the matter of moral discipline (1 Corinthians 5:1-8).
He expresses amazement at the shocking condition that was allowed to go unrebuked in the church (1 Corinthians 5:1-2).
a)
He presents the details of the case.
(1)
Fornication was actually heard and generally known to be present among them.
(2) The existing immorality was of such a nature that even the pagans around them would not tolerate it. (3) The shameful conduct was this: A certain onePaul did not name him, but they surely knew who he washad his father’s wife, living with her as his own.
b)
He shows his attitude toward their failure to act.
(1)
They were puffed uptheir pride prevented them from being aware of their duty to deal with this situation.
(2)
They did not mourn, but that is what they should have done in such shameful situations.
(3)
They had failed to see that the one who had done such a thing was taken away from among them.
He gives the inspired directive for dealing with this thing which they had neglected to handle (3-5).
a)
He shows just how he had arrived at the decision.
(1)
Although he was absent in body, he was present in spirit, that is, he was actually taking part in the case.
(2) His judgment on the guilty party.
(a)
He had already passed sentence on the guilty one just as if he were present.
(b)
He did this in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is, by the Lord’s authority exercised through the inspired apostle.
(c)
He was present in spirit when they gathered together to hear this verdict.
b)
He points out the effective power and purpose of this action.
(1)
The power to execute the sentence was the power of the Lord Jesus.
(2)
The sentence was to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.
(3)
The purpose of the decision was in the hope that the spirit of the one judged may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
He rebukes them for their pride which caused them to fail to take action in this situation (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).
a)
Their boasting was not good, that is, their pride in position of leadership was not good for it had caused them to neglect their duty in this case.
b)
He asks them a revealing question: Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The whole church was in danger of being corrupted because of the immoral conduct of one man which they had neglected to correct.
c)
He indicates the course of action they were to take.
(1)
They were to purge out the old leaven, that is, they were to remove the sinful condition from their midst.
(2)
The purpose of this action was that they might become what they were designed to be, a new lump, that is, a body of clean-living Christians.
(3)
The reason for this is seen in the fact that Christ, our passover lamb, has already been sacrificed.
(4)
They were therefore to keep the whole Christian life free from malice and wickedness by filling it with sincerity and truth.
B.
Paul explains the instructions he has given for handling cases such as the one that existed in their midst (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
He wrote in his epistle that they were to have no company with fornicators (1 Corinthians 5:9).
He explains what he meant by this remark (1 Corinthians 5:10-11).
a)
It did not refer to the people of the world who were fornicators, covetous persons, and idolators.
b)
This would require them to go out of the world, an evident impossibility.
c)
But he did write to them that they were not to keep company with a brother in Christ if that one was a fornicator, or a covetous person, or a drunkard, or an extortioner.
d)
They were not to eat with such a personno social functions that implied approval of sinners in the church.
The reason for this standard of conduct (1 Corinthians 5:12-13 a).
a)
He had nothing to do with judging those who are outside of the church.
b)
But they did have a responsibility to act in such matters where brethren were concerned.
c)
They were reminded that God will judge the outsiders.
As a final statement about the action they were to take, he said: Put away the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:13 b).
Questions
How had Paul learned about the sinful situation in the church?
In what way was the whole church guilty?
What was the nature of the sin?
In what other sins that tended to discredit the church before the pagan community had they failed to take proper action?
What was Paul’s attitude toward the failure of the church to act in these cases?
What kind of a reputation did Corinth have in regard to moral standards?
What was their attitude toward this sin?
Explain how this one could have his father’s wife.
What did this sin which was allowed to go unreproved by the church do to their effectiveness in preaching Christ and Him crucified?
What was the church puffed up about?
What should have been their reaction to this situation?
Why didn-’t Paul name the one who had done this thing?
What should the attitude of the church be toward a member who repents of his sin and desires to change his way of living?
What order did the apostle give the church in the case of the brother who was living in sin?
Is it better to remove a diseased member of the body than to let the whole body die?
What, in all probability, will become of the sinner if the church condones his sin?
What will become of the whole church that fails to rebuke those of its members who habitually practice conduct unbecoming to a Christian?
Why was the physical presence of Paul unnecessary in order for the church to act in this case?
How was his presence represented?
What was implied by the fact that Paul had already decided the case against the wicked man?
By what authority did he make the decision?
What was the sentence of the Lord’s inspired apostle?
What is meant by taking this action in the name of our Lord Jesus?
How could the apostles be trusted to act in His name?
What of Paul’s authority in relation to that of the other apostles?
Where was the apostolic decree against the guilty man to be made known?
When the church assembled on this occasion what were they to remember about the absence of Paul?
Why was the church not to hold a trial in this case?
What are some of the examples of physical punishment visited on outstanding sinners?
How can the church have just as great effect on the unsaved sinner as the demonstrations of such physical punishment?
Who was to deliver the sinner to Satan?
What was the part of the church in carrying out the sentence?
What are the various expressions that show exactly how this was to be done?
Should a condemned brother such as the one at Corinth be allowed to attend church?
What should a church refuse to do until he repents?
What should they do when he repents?
What was the purpose of the sentence against the wicked one?
What was the church glorying about?
Why did Paul say that it was not good?
Why did Paul say that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
What are the facts of the passover feast as presented in Exodus?
What bearing did this have on the situation at Corinth?
In what ways is the Christian life completely new?
What did Paul imply by the remark, even as ye are unleavened?
In what way is Christ our passover lamb?
What is the relation of the passover feast to the whole Christian life?
What does the old leaven represent?
What was to be done with it?
How does this apply to the case of the immoral man in the Corinthian church?
What does the unleavened bread stand for?
What are the two ways to understand Paul’s statement: I wrote to you in my epistle?
If there should be a lost epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, what bearing would it have on our understanding of First Corinthians?
What is the literal meaning of the expression, no company with fornicators?
What limit did Paul place on the church in regard to social contacts?
What did Jesus say about the relation of His disciples to the world?
Why did Paul say, then ye must needs go out of the world?
To whom did Paul’s directive apply?
How does Jesus-’ statement about the apostles in relation to the world illustrate that of the church?
What other sins besides immorality did Paul include in this decision?
What is said about judging the world?
For Discussion
How can the church have an effective voice in upholding the Christian standards of morality in our society?
What do you think about sermons on hell and the judgment?
1 Corinthians 5:1-2
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 1
Atrocious Sin** (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
1 Corinthians 5:1 Aberration: Abruptly Paul brings up the subject of the grossest immorality being practiced in the Corinthian brotherhood by one of the church members. It had actually (Gr. holos, most assuredly, incontrovertibly) been established and reported that there was immorality (Gr. porneia, sexual unchastity) among Christians in Corinth. The Greek word porneia does not indicate the specific form this immorality had taken because the word is used as a synonym for adultery (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9) and for illicit sexual intercourse in the unmarried (1 Corinthians 6:9) while in classical Greek and the book of Revelation the word is used for prostitution (Revelation 17:2; Revelation 17:4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 18:9). In fact, porneia often means, in the New Testament, illicit sexual intercourse in general. But Paul specifies the sexual immorality in Corinth as a form of incest, (incest, from Latin incestus and French incastus, meaning simply, not chaste). Paul does not use the word incest but simply describes the case as a man living with his father’s wife. Some commentators assume that the guilty man’s father had died and the son was living with one of the father’s wives. Most do not think it was the guilty man’s own mother, but a second wife of his father after divorce or death. Other commentators think the father may have been still living and was the one who suffered the wrong mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:12. Whatever the status of the guilty man’s father, the crime of incestuous sexual intercourse is severe enough to warrant the death penalty in the Mosaic covenant (cf. Leviticus 18:6-18; Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 27:20). The possibility of genetic deformities in the offspring of incestuous relationships is not relevant to scriptural prohibition. God decrees against incest because it destroys the divinely decreed order of human hierarchy in marriage and thus is destructive of the social order itself.
Paul describes this sin with shock as, such immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles. Paul was speaking hyperbolically to emphasize the seriousness of the crime. Incest was practiced among a few of the more depraved Gentiles. Some of the ancient Egyptians (Cleopatra II, with her brother, Cleopatra VII with Ptolemy XIII, her brother) practiced incest; Herod Antipas was married to Herodias, his niece-sister-in-law; some of the Roman emperors were accused by Suetonius in his Lives of The Twelve Caesars of practicing incest (Nero with his mother; Caligula with his sisters); Cicero, citing the case of the woman Sassia’s marriage to her son-in-law, Melinus, says, Oh, incredible wickedness, andexcept in this woman’s case-unheard of in all experience. There is also the case of a man named Callias, cited by Andocides in Greece in 400 B.C., who married his wife’s mother! But Andocides asks whether among the Greeks such a thing had ever been done before. Even some Jews practiced incest in the days of Ezekiel (cf. Ezekiel 22:11). So, even though some of the more depraved practiced it, the crime of incest was generally abhorent to the pagan. Even modern day anthropologists and sociologists find incest a crime considered immoral, aberrant and destructive in all ages and cultures:
Cross-cultural studies of morality have typically remarked on the complexity and diversity of values to be found across time and space. One commentator has been led to conclude that There is scarcely one norm or standard of good conduct that, in another time and place, does not serve to mark bad conduct. One possible exception to this conclusion is the universality of the incest taboo. (Moral Development and Behavior, pg. 70, Thomas Lickona, Editor, pub. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1976)
True, Corinth was Corinthone of the fleshpots of the ancient worldbut for all their obsessions with sin, the pagan Corinthians themselves had certain limits! It is hard to believe that a sin which even the pagans shunned had invaded the Church! Carnality (concentration on worldliness) plays funny tricks. It often turns truth upside down, or as Isaiah the prophet put it, calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).
1 Corinthians 5:2 Arrogance: The Christians in Corinth divided when they were supposed to be unitedand united when they were supposed to be dividing! Is there ever a time when Christians are supposed to divide? Certainly not over song books, church buildings or human leaders, or any other frivolous matter. But immorality of any kind is never a frivolous matter. Apparently, from this text and others, God expects Christians to keep themselves separated from anyone who calls himself a brother and is continuing to practice immorality. The RSV says the guilty man was living with his father’s wife; the Greek text uses the word echein which is a present infinitive and means literally, to keep on having. This immorality was flagrant and continuous. Some of these Corinthian Christians had formerly been fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards and robbers as well as idolaters (1 Corinthians 6:10) but they had overcome these sins. Even at the time this epistle was being written they were having difficulty resolving the problems of sexuality and marriage (I Cor. ch. 7). Indeed, even those called saints are faced with such problems. It is not a guarantee against temptation to be a Christian. Temptations are sure to come (Matthew 18:7). But Christians must not give in to temptations. Forty years later, the Christians of Asia Minor were still having problems with immorality in their congregations (see Revelation, ch. 2-3).
They were puffed up (Gr. pephusiomenoi, perfect tense verb, meaning, having been puffed up in the past, they were continuing to be puffed up). Paul was shocked about the incestuous relationship in this Christian, but he was more shocked at the attitude of the congregation toward it! The congregation had puffed itself up with self-importance and worldly wisdom. It was more interested in maintaining its cliques and parties and its image with the worldly-wise than in righteousness. They were concentrating on patterning the church after human institutions and worldly structures of leadership. Perhaps they were so puffed up about their image they did not want to admit this problem existed among them. If they took the drastic action taught by Christ and the apostles, they might be stigmatized as prudish by the pagan society of Corinth and their image of sophistication would be destroyed. It does not seem they were proud of the immoral conduct on the part of this brother, but their sin lay in the fact that they failed to do what God required and remove the immoral person from their fellowship. Perhaps the elders of the church were afraid their fellow Christians might accuse them of being judgmental had they taken the action required by the gospel. These are the very reasons some Christian congregations and leaders do not exercise New Testament guidance today in disciplining church members guilty of flagrant, aberrant and continuous immorality. Another reason it has become difficult today to apply discipline that would lead to repentance is the fact that a Christian disfellowshiped from one congregation may find sympathetic indulgence and reception in another congregation, often within the same city or locality.
Paul suggests that the only proper attitude for the congregation toward this disgraceful immorality is that of mourning. Incidentally, Paul’s suggestion furnishes a classic illustration of what Jesus meant in the second Beatitude (Matthew 5:4), Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be strengthened. The Bible pronounces a blessing on those who mourn over the cause of sin which is rebellion and disgrace toward God. Most people selfishly mourn because they are suffering the consequences of their sinthey are not concerned that sin has brought shame and hurt to God. The Greek syntax of 1 Corinthians 5:2 is instructive! Literally it would be translated, And you, having become puffed up continue to be, rather than having mourned about this circumstance in order that (Gr. hina) the one having done this deed might be removed from among you. In other words, true Christian mourning about sin does something about the sin. Mourning is not satisfied simply with regret. Paul advised, Let him who has done this be removed (Gr. arthe, be driven out) from among you.
The Corinthian congregation was not mourningthey were boasting (see 1 Corinthians 5:6). What had they to boast about in this situation? Obviously, they were not bragging about how immoral the congregation was. Their pride undoubtedly centered in their concept of sophistication or broadmindedness. The elders and leaders of the different factions may have rationalized, What our brother does in his private life is entirely his affair. Our obligation is to continue to love him; we dare not be judgmental toward these people. Perhaps they justified their approach to the circumstances by saying to themselves, When you live in Corinth, you have to adapt somewhat to the culture. Besides, morals change with the times and we should feel a certain obligation to -loosen up-’ ourselves, become less bigoted and more liberal. This same carnal attitude of boasting about broad-mindedness, especially in the area of sexual promiscuity, is sweeping our nation in high and low placesand even in some churches. Whatever the excuse for their boasting, it was improperin fact it was sinful!
1 Corinthians 5:1-8
Applebury’s Comments
The Matter of Moral Discipline (1-8)
Text
1 Corinthians 5:1-8. It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: 8 wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
*Commentary
It is actually reported.*The problem of division in the church at Corinth had been reported to Paul by those of the household of Chloe. It is possible, although we cannot be certain about it, that his information about certain derelictions in the church came from the same source. The church had failed to take proper action in at least three issues, moral discipling, litigation, and use of the body. Bad as the sin of division was, these three additional sins coupled with the failure of the church to do anything about them constituted an even worse condition. There is little wonder that the apostle expresses amazement at the shocking condition of the church.
*there is fornication among you.*Immoral conduct stands high on the list of sins that degrade man and rob him of the privilege of maintaining family relations within the limits of the purity that God intended him to observe. The apostle condemns the sin and also implies that the failure of the responsible leaders to discipline the guilty part is equally serious.
*not even among Gentiles.*This is a remarkable statement in view of the fact that Corinth was known for its luxury and licentiousness. There were limits to things that even pagans tolerated. God’s divine plan for the home given at the time of creation of man (Genesis 2:23-24) and upheld by Our Lord (Matthew 19:4-6) should have been restored to its proper place in the life of the church. It is true that polygamy was known among pagans and practiced by some of the believers in God in Old Testament times, but the case of incest in the church at Corinth could not be justified by either pagan or Jew or Christian who held to the divine standard for the home.
*his father’s wife.*Polygamy was practiced and concubinage was approved in the culture of that day, but this thing was shocking to all whose moral sense was not dulled by selfish pride and desire to receive praise from men. This onewhoever he was we do not know for Paul does not name himwas probably living with one of the wives of his father, certainly not with his mother, Nothing said about the father, but in all probability he was dead.
With the church tolerating such conduct, how could they hope to win pagans to Christ? Pagan standards, it would seem, were higher than those of the church at Corinth. No effective presentation of the cause of Christ can be made unless it is supported by the transformed lives of the members of the church.
*And ye are puffed up.*Once again Paul hurls this charge at the Corinthians. They were guilty of being self-centered and arrogant. This came from the situation that resulted in the divided state of the church. Their cliques, where men received glory from men, were the cause of their failure to act in these cases that required disciplinary action. It does not seem that they were proud of the immoral conduct on the part of this brother, but their sin lay in the fact that they failed to do their duty and remove the immoral one from their midst.
*did not rather mourn.*They had lost their sense of shame. The fact that such a sin existed in their midst should have caused them to mourn as a sign of disapproval. Instead, they were carrying on their efforts to promote one leader above another as if totally unaware of the presence of sin in their midst. The whole church was being put to shame in the eyes of the pagans, but they were unaware of it.
*he that had done this deed.*Paul did not name him. There was no need to do so for he must have been well known to the church and to the pagan community. Perhaps the name was withheld with the hope of helping the guilty brother. Remedial action was called for. The final judgment, of course, would take care of those who would not heed the admonition of the gospel. The man mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 could be the same as the one mentioned here, although most commentators doubt it. If it is true, then it is evident that the effort Paul put forth to correct the situation in Corinth was not in vain. At any rate, the principle of forgiveness would apply in the event the man, whether the same one or not, did repent and show evidence of it by a changed life.
*taken away from among you.*Paul had stated that fornication is among you. Now the one who did the deed must be taken away from you. Immorality and all other violations of God’s law for His people simply cannot remain in the church without destroying the church. Better to remove the diseased member than to loose the whole body. But the analogy ends here, for the removed one could be saved in the end if he should repent and ask God for forgiveness. This should be the end in view in all such cases. To condone sin, however, is to virtually seal the doom of the sinner. To take him away from the other members is the only possible hope of saving him. The problem is, How shall this be done? This Paul proceeds to show in detail.
*For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit.*It did not require the physical presence of the apostle to settle this matter. God knows the hearts of all men, and His inspired Word is sufficient to direct the course of action designed to remedy all such cases. It is possible that the Corinthians felt there was nothing they could do since the apostle was not present. They may not have reckoned on the information reaching him. Perhaps they were too smug in their exalted positions within the cliques in the church to care much about his absence or their duty in the matter. But this situation demanded action, and Paul tells them what to do about it.
*have already as though I were present judged him.*This is like a case being tried before a judge. Paul as the inspired apostle of Christ hands down the verdict. The heart of this involved sentence is this: I have already decided to hand him over to Satan. There was no call for a formal assembly to try the case. This had already been done by one competent to do so, for he was directed in his action as an apostle by the Holy Spirit. All that was left for the church was to carry out the order of the judgehand over such a one to Satan. This order was just as binding as if Paul had been there in person to pronounce sentence.
*that hath wrought this thing.*There was no need to repeat the sordid details; they had been given and were well known to the church. Note Paul’s remark to the Ephesians, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints (Ephesians 5:3). But such a sin had to be removed.
*in the name of our Lord Jesus.*That is, by His authority. As an apostle of Christ, Paul is acting for Christ. This could only be so because he was being directed by the Holy Spirit. Note Jesus-’ words to the apostles during one of His appearances after the resurrection, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained (John 20:22-23). A similar word was spoken to the apostles at an earlier time, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these he shall speak: and he shall declare unto the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and declare it unto you (John 16:13-14). Upon still another occasion Jesus said to the twelve, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). There is no doubt that Paul had same authority as all the other apostles. The decision of one judge is the decision of the whole group. The decision which he made in this case is the divine decision, and it had to be carried out as an act of obedience to God.
*ye being gathered together, and my spirit.*This shows the conditions under which the judgment of the apostle was to be carried out. The church was to assemble with the apostle’s presence represented by his inspired epistle which gave direction for their action. The directive was just as authoritative as if Paul were actually present. The absence of living apostles today does not justify the church in disregarding the instruction of the Word in such matters if they should occur.
This was not a trial as if the church were attempting to arrive at a solution of the problem. The facts were too well known; they were rumored everywhere. The decision was that of the inspired apostle. The church had only one thing to do: let it be known that they were acting on the orders of the Lord through His apostle. The church, the one who had done this deed, and the community in which it occurred were all to know that they were no longer to be mixed up with the one guilty of immoral conduct.
*with the power of the Lord Jesus.*It is the Lord’s power functioning through His inspired Word through an obedient church that actually hands over the guilty one to Satan. Christ alone can exclude one from His body just as the Lord alone can add to His body those who are being saved. But He accomplishes both through the church as it complies with His instructions.
There are numerous examples of the exercise of divine power to punish the wicked. Some of them have been exhibited in miraculous demonstrations. Ananias and Sapphira were stricken dead for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11). They, of course, thought they were dealing with the apostle Peter when they misrepresented their generosity. Not every one who lies is immediately stricken dead, but the judgment of the Lord is against the liar (Revelation 21:8). Elymas the sorcerer was stricken blind for interfering with the effort of Paul to present the gospel to Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:9-12).
The miracle of a transformed life faithfully demonstrated in the daily conduct of the church would have just as great effect on the unsaved as these miracles in the physical realm. The Corinthian brethren could yet impress the pagan community that the Lord was real to them by excluding sin from their midst. The church that actually abides by the instruction of the Lord in His Word can effectively show a wilful sinner that no one approves his deeds but Satan.
*to deliver such a one unto Satan.*The Lord was to do this through His obedient church. But how? Note the clear statements of the course of action that was to be taken as set forth in this context: (1) taken away from among you (1 Corinthians 5:1); (2) deliver such a one to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5); (3) purge out the old leaven (1 Corinthians 5:7); (4) have no company with fornicators (1 Corinthians 5:9); (5) put away the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:13).
Note that no formal trial is indicated. It was not a question of the church trying to decide one’s guilt; the apostle had already made that decision. It was simply a matter of the church complying with the Lord’s instruction through His inspired apostle. In other words, the church is to follow the standard of daily conduct revealed in the Word of God. That forbids getting mixed up with immoral persons so as to imply approval of their conduct. Where the Word is faithfully preached and effectively backed up by the lives of all concerned, there will be no doubt as to the position of the church on matters such as faced the church at Corinth. When the church shows by its conduct that it does not approve immoral conduct, the only one left to do so is Satan and his slaves to sin. Should such a person be permitted to attend church services? While this is a matter of opinion, it seems that if the Word is faithfully preached and the church is faithfully living it, this would be the ideal place for sinners of all sorts to hear what to do to be saved from sins. But under no circumstances should they be put into positions of leadership and responsibility in the church. No action of the church should be such as to lead the one at variance with the truth of the gospel to imply approval of his life.
*for the destruction of the flesh.*Paul has spoken of the members of the Corinthian congregation as made of flesh and belonging to flesh. That was a reference to their spiritual immaturity. But flesh in this context refers to the sinful practice that was the outgrowth of perversion of powers inherent in the physical body. For a list of such sins which Paul calls the works of the flesh see Galatians 5:19-21.
The destruction of the flesh then does not imply bodily harm as in the cases of Ananias and Elymas. It does suggest the conquering of those desires that arise out of physical impulses such as led to the shocking state of affairs in Corinth.
*that the spirit may be saved.*Man is a two-fold beinga spirit dwelling in a physical body. Much of what becomes sin in his life is a perversion of those things which are connected with his physical being. The physical body dies, but it will be raised in the resurrection of the dead at the last day. Paul declares, as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus said, the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment (John 5:28-29).
It was with this hope in mind that Paul gave instruction to the church to deliver the guilty one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. He hoped that the guilty one would repent and change his ways and be saved. Now we see why such peremptory action is commanded. It isn-’t kind to condone sin and encourage one to go on in sinful activity that can lead only to his being lost. Deliver him to Satan; let him know by teaching and action that he has only Satan’s approval, and it might bring him to his senses. Of course, a Christian attitude toward all such individuals at all times is necessary. The church should show a willingness to forgive at the least sign of repentance. See 2 Corinthians 5:5-11; 2 Thessalonians 3:14.
*Your glorying is not good.*Their glorying over men and being puffed up with pride while a sinful situation was being disregarded to the disgrace of the whole church and the inevitable loss of the sinner was not praiseworthy. As leprosy destroys the beauty of the body, so sin destroys the attractiveness of the church.
*a little leaven leavens the whole lump.*Were some saying that this was an isolated case that did not necessarily affect the whole church? Paul is not saying that the whole church was practicing such sin. But the whole body was in danger of being affected by the sin of one member. The effectiveness of the church in preaching Christ was ruined by this one example that even pagans could not approve. Just as a small amount of the leavening agent spreads through all the dough, so this evil thing would spread to the whole church. That’s why they had to get rid of it in the manner prescribed by the inspired apostle.
*purge out the old leaven.*At the passover feast, the Jews were to remove all leaven from their midst. Leaven in this instance stands for sin. It is associated with the old life before one becomes a Christian. The church is to get rid of sinful conduct that belongs to its former life. Paul made this clear in the Roman letter: We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we might walk in the newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away so that we should no longer be in bondage to sin (Romans 6:4-6). See also Colossians 3:5-11 where Paul declares that the members on earth which are involved in sin such as fornication and the like are to be put to death.
*that ye may be a new lump.*The Christian life is completely new. The Christian is a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). He has a new name (Acts 11:26). He has a new master (Romans 6:16-18). He has a new hope (Hebrews 6:18-20). He has a new destiny (2 Peter 3:11-13). With all this, he certainly should be living the new life (Romans 6:1-5; Romans 12:1-2).
*even as ye are unleavened.*God set the Christian free in Christ. The church is, in His sight, sanctified or separated from sin. Since that is what they are in God’s eternal purpose, church members are to conduct themselves accordingly. The church is not to be like ancient Israel that was delivered from bondage in Egypt but continually longed to go back to their former state and were forever doing the things that brought disgrace upon themselves and their God who redeemed them.
*For our passover hath been sacrificed, even Christ.*See Exodus 12:1-51 for the account of the passover. The lamb represents Christ. John the Baptist called Him the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Paul says, Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21). The point is this, Christ has already died for our sins. We are under obligation to live the life separated from sin (Romans 6:1-2).
*let us keep the feast.*The whole Christian life is likened to the passover feast. Just as leaven which represented sin was to be excluded during the feast so sin is to be put away from the whole Christian life. The Christian is to live the life of separation from sin seven days a week for as long as life lasts. It is not for just one day a week, but for the duration of life (Revelation 2:10). This earnest exhortation expresses the apostle’s hope that the church at Corinth will put this sinful person with his immoral conduct out of their midst.
*old leaven.*The leaven that represents sin and that belonged to the old life before becoming a Christian.
*unleavened bread.*The new life in Christ is to be characterized by sincerity and truth. The Corinthian church was guilty of living a life of hypocrisy and falsehood. They were preaching remission of sins through the blood of the Lamb, but living in s n and lending approval to others who were doing so. Pagans could not be won to the Lord by such conduct. The gospel which is the word of truth must be supported by a life of sincerity and truth in Christ.
1 Corinthians 5:3-8
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
Apostolic Summons **(1 Corinthians 5:3-8)
3 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:3-5 Chastening: This advice that the immoral man should be expelled from the church comes with full apostolic authority. It is advice from the Holy Spirit of God speaking through the instrumentality of an apostle. There is no human guesswork involved here. Christ’s bride (the church) is to keep herself sanctified, cleansed, in splendor, without spot or wrinkle, that she might be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:21-27). Immorality and all impurity must not even be named among the saints (Ephesians 5:3). The church is to take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them, for it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret (Ephesians 5:11-12).
Although the apostle was absent from their presence, and could not be there to speak with them face to face, he had already made judgment from the moment he received the report (Gr. kekrika, perfect tense verb), and his judgment continued to be, deliver such a one to Satan. Note the qualifying statements Paul makes about his judgment:
a.
It is in the name of (by the authority of) the Lord Jesus.
b.
It is by apostolic epistlethe apostle being absent in body.
c.
It is to be done by the assembled church.
d.
It is for the purpose of putting to death worldly-mindedness in the guilty man in order to save his spirit for God.
Paul’s bodily absence from these brethren did not mean his spirit (will) could not be present among them. His spirit would be actualized among them through his letter to them. His letter expressed his willhis spirithis personality. As a matter of fact, it is through the written word of the Holy Spirit (the Bible) that God actualizes the Spirit of Christ in the heart and soul of every believer (see John 14:21; John 14:23; John 15:7; John 15:10-11; 1 John 2:5-6; 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:24). And, of course, Paul’s written word carried with it the power of our Lord Jesus.
The apostolic order is to deliver this man to Satan. The Greek word is paradounai, which means, give over, abandon, deliver up. What is it to abandon someone to Satan? It is the same as, Let him become to you as a Gentile and a publican (Matthew 18:17); it is the same as having nothing to do with him (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15). To deliver, or abandon, a church member to Satan is to declare him a non-covenant person. Those of the Old Testament dispensation who were cut off from the congregation were to be considered no longer members of Israel and severed from all rights and privileges of the covenant! They could not offer sacrifices at the temple, they could not associate with God’s people, and they were considered unclean. They were no longer able to be reconciled to God. The same is true in the case of a Christian excommunicated from the church. Such a one is unreconciled to God, a rebel, and not a member of God’s redeemed community until he repents and seeks forgiveness. Delivering an immoral impenitent to Satan is really only an acknowledgment by the church of that which the sinner has already done to himself! It gets the church’s position straightened out on sin as much as it gets the sinner’s attitude straightened out on it!
Excommunication does not mean that the church has given up on the sinner and wishes him to be lost forever. In fact, it means just the opposite. It means the church really cares that the sinner is jeopardizing his eternal salvation by continuing in his sin, and the church is jealous for his salvation and fellowship, but the church must also fear God and keep his commandments concerning sin in the camp. This is precisely why Paul qualified his order to deliver the man to Satan with the words, … for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. The church was not to destroy the man, but to reclaim the man for Christ. As he was, living in contemptuous rebellion against Christ’s rule over him, he was giving allegiance to Satan. The church must understand this is where the man is, admit the man belongs to Satan and not to Christ, and take unpleasant but affirmative action that might move the man to return to Christ’s lordship in his life.
Satan, of course, would not personally offer any assistance to the guilty man to destroy his carnal-mindedness. Satan would use every opportunity and circumstance to deceive the man into involving himself ever deeper into carnality, God alone, through his word and Spirit in our hearts, destroys fleshly-mindedness, Paul did not mean the physical body of the man was to be destroyedhe meant the destruction of an attitude! The apostle wanted to slay a certain mindset, a philosophy of life, which the man had accepted and allowed to turn him away from godliness. Paul himself had to fight and conquer (by God’s grace) this same mind-set (cf. Romans 7:13-25; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27). There is this same struggle in every Christian (see Galatians 5:17).
Apparently Paul believed this man would learn something by being excommunicated and given over to some realm where Satan is allowed by God to function which might motivate the man to draw near to Christ. Paul delivered to Satan two of his co-workers, Hymenaeus and Alexander, that they might learn not to blaspheme. How did he expect them to learn this? How did God teach Job to depend more on God’s grace than on his own self-righteousness? God delivered Job to Satan (see Job 2:6-7). How was Paul, the apostle, taught that he should not boast in having received revelations from God that no other human had received? How did Paul learn that God’s grace was sufficient and that he should not rely on himself? God delivered Paul to Satan and sent Paul through the school of affliction (see 2 Corinthians 12:1-10; 2 Corinthians 1:3-11, respectively). Jesus delivered Peter to Satan to be sifted as wheat (Luke 22:31-32). Evidently Paul believed that when this man was cast out of the brotherhood of believers, he would suffer affliction (which the devil would gladly inflict because the devil’s total ambition is to hurt both God and man) which God would allow the devil to inflict, and this might produce repentance in the man. Since Satan is the great accuser, the man’s torment might be such a burden of guilt he would be moved to shame (see 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15) and turn to Christ for grace and forgiveness which would demand that he put to death the deeds done in the body. When God gave up the heathen society Paul wrote about in chapter one of Romans, to whom and to what did he give them up? He gave them up to the prince of darkness! When God allowed a strong delusion to come upon those who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness, to whom did he deliver them? He delivered them to the activity of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:1-15). We must always remember, however, that Biblical religion is not a form of dualism like the religions of ancient Babylon and Persia. God’s word never presents a picture of two kingdoms (light and darkness; good and evil) with equal power! In the Bible we learn that Jehovah is without beginning and end and is all powerful forever. Satan has only such power as is relegated to him and is constantly subject to the control of Almighty God (see our comments on Revelation, ch. 20, in Twenty-Six Lessons on Revelation, Part Two, pgs. 95-121, pub. College Press).
If this guilty man, delivered to Satan, puts to death his attitude that this world and physical things are man’s ultimate purpose and goal, his spirit will be saved. Paul, of course, does not mean to infer that man is only spirit and that the physical body is evil, per se. That was the deception taught by the Gnostics to justify their depravities. Paul was well aware that at the resurrection man will be raised with a new body. But it will be a body different from the one he inhabits in this cosmic order. Man’s new body will be celestial, immortal and incorruptible (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:35-58). Therefore, what Paul means by the saving of man’s spirit is the saving of the whole man. Man is not whole until he is spiritual. It is the holy spiritual essence of man that is eternal and if controlled by the love of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18; 2 Corinthians 5:1-21), will be clothed with immortality at Christ’s day (his second coming). Scandalous and impenitent immorality in any congregation must be dealt with. There is no option except discipline. It is the Lord’s command. However, in view of the awesome responsibility of having to deliver. a man (or woman) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh it must be done with compassionate love, with strict adherence to the divine guidelines of the New Testament, and with reclamation of a penitent brother as its only goal. When such a case demands attention by the congregation and its leadership, it must be done with firmness, without partiality and as quickly as love allows. Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil (Ecclesiastes 8:11; see also Isaiah 26:9-10). The action of delivering a member of a congregation to Satan (or excommunication) must never be done on the basis of hearsay. The evidence of immorality must be clear and actualnot merely rumored.
1 Corinthians 5:6-8 Cleansing: It seems incredible that the Corinthian Christians would be boasting about such an abhorrent sin in their midst. Perhaps they were boasting about their graciousness and tolerance in not having judged the man (see comments on 1 Corinthians 5:2). Whatever the case, the apostle is as appalled at their attitude as he is at the sin. By their tolerance of this perversion they are leaving the whole congregation to be infected with sin. Leaven (yeast) is commonly used in the Bible to symbolize the penetrating power of a small matter so as to permeate and influence the greater, for either good or evil. The context always determines how the symbol is being used, It is clear that Paul is using leaven here as a figure of evil influence. Every one knows that just a little leaven will reproduce itself in a large lump of bread-dough. It is also true that one sin may infect a whole congregation, reproducing evil throughout the whole body. And how much more deadly would be the influence of such sin if the congregation was proud of its toleration of the evil.
Paul commands the church to cleanse itself. The Greek text has the word ekkatharate (aorist imperative). This is an order, not a suggestion. The Greek word is a compound word with a prepositional prefix meaning, clean out, purge out, eliminate. It is the word from which we have the English word catharsis which means to purify.
Should anyone think the apostle is too severe in his demands or his language he has only to read the Old Testament law concerning punishment for sins of seemingly lesser perversion. In the law of Moses Israelites were to be put to death for rebelling against parents, for bowing down to an image, for practicing witchcraft, and many other sins. Surely Christians are never to get the idea that God is more tolerant of sin in the New dispensation (see Hebrews 2:1-4; Matthew 5:27-30). Jesus cursed a fig tree and withered it simply because it gave signs of fruit but produced none. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by the Holy Spirit for lying about what they gave to the church; Elymas was struck blind by the Holy Spirit trying to turn Sergius Paulus away from faith in Jesus (Acts 13:8 ff.). God is serious about sin!
All the symbolism of Jewish history and God’s redemptive program for man is applied here to the Christian experience. The Christian covenant is God’s ultimate feast. Jesus spoke often (parabolically) of his new kingdom (the church) as a feast. Paul is not referring to the Lord’s Supper, per se, in these verses. He is using the same figure of speech Jesus used in his parables. Paul is likening the whole Christian life to a festival or holy-day. Of course, the best symbol to illustrate that is the Jewish Passover feast. The Christian’s Passover is Christ (Gr. pascha). Christ is the absolute passoverthe perfect passover. He is the fulfillment of that which all the Jewish feasts typified and prophesied. The Old Testament passover specifically celebrated God’s redemption of Israel and sanctification or separation from bondage into a people called out for God’s glory and purpose. All the festivals or holy-days ordained by God in the law of Moses were celebrations of righteousness, love, truth and goodness. They were holy dedications acknowledging man’s reconciliation to the will of God through sacrificial, vicarious atonement.
At the Jewish passover, specifically, all Jewish homes had to be searched with minute care for leaven and any that was found was to be put out of the house (see Exodus 12:14-20). If anyone disobeyed this commandment they were to be cut off from the congregation of Israel! Leaven, in the matter of the Jewish passover, symbolized the old life of bondage in Egypt, which, in turn, symbolizes sin. In the Jewish passover the old leaven had to be thrown out before the slaying of the sacrificial lamb and the observance of the festival. In the Corinthian antitype their lamb had already been sacrificed and they were trying to celebrate the festival (the Christian’s life) with the old leaven still remaining in their house.
The whole Christian experience is said to be a festival or a feast. The Old Testament prophets often predicted the messianic age in the figure of a feast (Isaiah 25:6-9; Isaiah 55:1-2; Zechariah 14:16-19, etc.). Jesus used the figure of a feast to predict his messianic kingdom (Luke 14:1 ff.; Matthew 22:1-14; Matthew 25:1-13; John 6:35-63; Luke 15:22-32). The apostles frequently spoke of the Christian life as feasting (cf. Hebrews 6:1 ff; Hebrews 12:22-23; 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12-14; 1 Peter 2:2-3; Ephesians 5:18; see also John 4:34; Matthew 5:6; Isaiah 65:13). So, when Paul says here, Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival. (Gr. heortazomen, feast) he is not limiting the need for cleansing to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The church must purge itself of the sin within it in order to be considered as being a participant of the whole Christian experience!
And the sin within the church is not only the man living with his father’s wife! The translation of the Greek word kakias by the English word malice is not sufficiently precise to give the clear meaning of the sentence. The word kakias means badness in quality. It may have the connotation of maliciousness if the context demands it, but that does not seem to be the case here. The word kakias refers more to disposition or attitude (bad attitude) than it does to deeds. The next word in the sentence, evil (Gr. ponerias), has to do with deeds. It would seem, therefore, that Paul was urging the Corinthian church to purge itself of its bad attitude or disposition (arrogance and worldly sophistication) as well as the incestuous relationship of the man with his father’s wife.
So long as the church was of the attitude to see itself as sophisticated by allowing the sinful couple to continue in its fellowship, they could not possibly be living the Christian life (keeping the festival with the unleavened bread) of sincerity and truth. The word* eilikrineias* is translated sincerity and is from two Greek words which mean sun and judge. The idea is that a life lived in sincerity is a life that is not lived in darkness or shadows, but one that is lived in the undimmed, brilliance of pure truth.
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 3
Affiliations Sorted** (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robbernot even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to ?Judges 13:1-25 God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.
1 Corinthians 5:9-10 Associating with Heathen: We learn from 1 Corinthians 5:9 that Paul wrote at least three letters to the Corinthian church. It is clear from his statement, I wrote to you in my letter., that he had written to Corinth prior to the epistle now before us, and, of course, he wrote at least one (Second Corinthians) afterward. In the non-extant letter Paul had exhorted them not to associate with immoral men. The Greek word sunanamignusthai is a compound of three words and literally means, mix up with, and is translated associate with (RSV) and company with (KJV). The same Greek word is used in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and is translated have nothing to do with him. In his previous letter Paul intended his exhortation about dissociation from immoral people to be applied in its strictest sense to any fellow Christian who was continuing, impenitently, in an immoral sexual relationship. That would probably apply specifically, as we shall observe later, to grossly impenitent and perverted sexual sinners in the heathen society as well. It seems, however, that the Corinthians inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) misunderstood Paul. They assumed he meant they were to withdraw completely from any associations with their heathen neighbors. The RSV translation, not at all, of the Greek words ou pantos seems to make Paul mean that Christians should have no reservations at all about mixing or mingling with the immoral around them. Such an idea would make the inspired apostle contradict himself since in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 Corinthians 7:1 Paul pointedly commands Christians not to share in heathen depravity! The Greek words ou pantos are better translated, not meaning altogether. Thus Paul is saying, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not meaning that you must dissociate yourself altogether (or completely) from the immoral of this world.. The apostle categorizes the heathen into those who sin against their bodies (immoral, Gr. pornois, sexual sins), those who sin against society (greedy and robbers), and those who sin against God (idolaters, Gr. eidololatrais, image worshipers).
Since all the citizens of Corinth, except the Christians and Jews, would be idolaters, and many of them would be guilty of sexual sins and/or greedy, it would have been nearly impossible for the Christians to reject all associations with the heathen. They could have made no purchases in the markets, made no appeals for civil justice, visited no neighbors and relatives, and made no evangelistic contacts with the lost. The only way they could have had no associations at all, theoretically, would be to move away from the city of Corinth into the uninhabited mountains and forests and formed monasteries or communes which were completely self-sustaining and self-governing. Total dissociation would have precluded any possibility of the Corinthian Christians carrying out the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 28:18-20). Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever advocated asceticism or monasticism. New Testament Christianity is to be lived out in the midst of a sinful society so it may have a leavening (in the good sense) influence (cf. Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20-21). Christians are the salt of the earth and light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Christians are to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:15-19). As one writer has put it, Paul’s admonition here concerning the immoral of this world did not prohibit contact, but it did prohibit conformity.
But Paul’s admonition concerning an impenitent, immoral person who bears the name of brother, is, not even to eat with such a one. This does not refer to the Lord’s Supper, but to dining together socially. Being a guest for dinner in another person’s home was considered in the ancient world to be a sign that the host was intimately associated with the guest and that he agreed with his philosophical stand and his life-style. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus would eat with publicans and sinners (cf. Matthew 9:10-11; Matthew 11:19; Luke 19:7). It would be dangerous to both the faithful Christian and the impenitent brother for the faithful Christian to socialize with the impenitent (see 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Titus 3:10-11; 2 Peter 2:1-22; 2 John 1:10-11). First, it would give the impenitent brother the impression that he would be acceptable in the Christian fellowship whether he repented or not; second, it would expose the faithful brother to temptations in a seductive atmosphere of geniality and acceptability; third, it would make possible certain unwarranted conclusions from both the Christian community and the pagan society that the Church was not much different than the world in the matter of immorality.
The church is not charged with the responsibility of disciplining (judging) outsiders. Paul expected the Corinthian church to know that. As far as the unchurched sinners of society was concerned, the apostle allows for such contact as was necessary for the ongoing of life in the world. But he permitted no contact (complete withdrawal) at even the social level with a sinning brother. On the other hand, the church is most specifically charged with the responsibility for disciplining (judging) members of the church. For the church to fail in this duty is to dilute the spiritual quality of the congregation, and thus destroy its purpose as a city set on a hill! This does not mean that all church members must be sinless. It does not mean that every church member who commits an unwitting sin or falls into a temptation, must be excommunicated. The crucial issue is flagrant, shameful, continued sin for which there is no apparent repentance (including a change of mind issuing in a change of conduct). When such impenitence is reported and has been established by due scriptural process, discipline involving driving out (Gr.* exareite,* expel, take out, removed from) the evil one (Gr. poneron) from the fellowship of the church is demanded. It is the word of the Lord!
Applebury’s Comments
Paul Explains the Instruction he has Given (9-13)
Text
1 Corinthians 5:9-13. 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.
*Commentary
I wrote to you in my epistle.*Literally, in the epistle. See the reference to Sosthenes who is called our brother, although it is literally the brother (1 Corinthians 1:1). This often presents a problem in translation, for the article could be used in a number of different ways. In this case, it could refer to the epistle which the Corinthians were reading (our First Corinthians).
The tense of the verb also presents a translation problem. Normally it would indicate action occurring in past time just as our English text says, I wrote. But the Greeks also used this tense with another meaning. For example, Paul could be thinking of his readers in such a manner as to suppose that he was actually with them when they were reading the letter. If this is true, he would be saying, In this letter, I wrote to have no company with fornicators. This, in substance, is what he did write in 1 Corinthians 5:1-9. Note 1 Corinthians 5:2, he that had done this thing might be taken away from you, and Purge out the old leaven (1 Corinthians 5:7). In other words, he could be explaining in greater detail what he had just written. All are agreed that this is the sense in which I wrote is verse eleven is to be taken.
While some of the early commentators take this view about verse nine, most of the later ones think of it as a reference to an epistle which he wrote prior to our First Corinthians. It is, according to this view, the lost epistle of Paul’S. While we must concede that this is possible, the fact remains that it is not a proven fact and that it does make sense to take I wrote as suggested above. While all this is interesting and should be taken into consideration, it does not change the import of this passage in the slightest. We still have the inspired instruction about such cases of misconduct in the church and the explanation as given in this section (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
*no company with fornicators.*Literally, not mixed up with. Do not mingle or associate with those guilty of immoral conduct such as this one who had his father’s wife.
*not at all meaning with fornicators of this world.*What the apostle had said on this subject in this epistleor in the so-called lost epistlewas not to be understood as saying that church people were never to associate with people of the world. Of course, they were not to mingle with them in such a manner as to become one like them and lend approval to sinful practice. The Pharisees attempted to discredit Jesus by insinuating that His presence at social functions of His day where tax collectors and sinners were present was lending approval to sinful practice. Jesus-’ answer to this charge was this, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick (Matthew 9:12). Christian people cannot afford to associate with the world and partake of its sinful practices, but they must make contact in such a manner as to help the lost sinner of the world to find the Savior.
*for then must ye heeds go out of the world.*Paul was afraid that they might misunderstand what he had written on this subject. Was it a former epistle or the one he was just writing? This, of course, was no problem to the Corinthians. If they had received an earlier epistle, this language would be clear to them. If, on the other hand, all he had written was this letter, then it would be equally intelligible to them. But this need not trouble us, for the meaning is the same whether written in some earlier epistle or in the earlier paragraph.
Christian people are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. It is not possible to go out of the world, and if it were, it would be contrary to God’s plan to save the believer to do so. God’s plan calls for the preaching of the word of the cross by the faithful church that men might hear and believe and be saved.
*if any man that is named a brother.*What Paul wrote concerned the church composed of brethren in Christ. The church is in the world but not of it, just as Jesus said of the apostles (John 17:11-14). Living in the world where sinners lives does not mean that Christians approve the sinful things of the world. To condone sin in the church, however, does mean that the church is lending approval to sin. This idea is completely out of harmony with the terms by which Paul had addressed the church in the opening words of this epistle. There he called them sanctified and saints which implied separation from the world of sin.
*covetous.*People are sometimes known by the company they keep. This is true of words also, for the other terms with which a word may be associated tend to influence its meaning. Immoral conduct was abhorrent to God and should also be to godly people. But how often do we think of covetousness as being in the same category? Paul says that covetousness is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). In this context he lists it with the fornicator, the idolater, the reviler, the drunkard, and the extortioner.
*with such a one no, not to eat.*So what he writes is not limited to one particular sin such as fornication. The whole list is condemned. Christians are not to try to go on living in sin of any sort.
Not to eat does not refer to the Lord’s supper. It is rather a reference to what has just been said about not getting mixed up with sinners in such a manner as to lend approval to sinful conduct. Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 10:27 that it would not be wrong for a Christian to eat with a non-Christian provided it did not involve a compromise of Christian, principles.
*judging them that are without.*Paul’s responsibility was clearly with the church, not outsiders. He pronounced inspired judgment on those who were in the body of Christ. The world was in another category. The gospel was to be preached to all the world that they might believe and be baptized and so be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Until men of the world get this done, they are not under the standard of conduct that governs the Christian.
*God judgesh.*God will judge the sinner of the world in the day of the Lord. This warning should cause sinners within and without to repent (Acts 17:30-31). Therefore Paul says, Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.
Summary
As was to be expected, a divided church that was more interested in promoting a party spirit than in becoming a living demonstration of the power of the word of the cross to transform a life had neglected its duty toward its own members. For example, one who wore the name of brother was guilty of the sin of having his father’s wife; others were going to law before pagan judges to the disgrace of the church in the eyes of the gentile world; still others were guilty of sinning against the body that God intended to be a temple of the Holy Spirit. The apostle severely condemns the revolting sin of immoral conduct. But the attitude of the whole church toward this sin and their failure to do their duty in correcting the condition are even more severely criticized by Paul in this chapter. Even the Gentiles would not tolerate such a sin as a man having his father’s wife, but the church had neglected to act in the case of a brother practicing this disgraceful thing. They were puffed up over divisions among them and had entirely neglected to consider the enormity of the sin that should have caused the deepest sense of shame and sorrow to the whole church. Paul, although absent from them, had made up his mind what should be done. He told them of his decision which stood just as if he were actually present. The church should gather together and be aware of his presence in spirit because of the letter he was writing to them. The church could then act in the name of Christ, doing what Christ Himself would do, and deliver this one to Satan. The power to do this belonged to the Lord and was exercised through the inspired instruction of the apostle in connection with the obedience of the church. The action prescribed was designed to show the guilty one that Satan was the only one left to approve his guilty conduct. Pagans would then see that such a one was completely discredited as a representative of anything belonging to Christ and His church. The purpose of this action was the destruction of the fleshthe source of the sinful conduct that led to this violation of God’s law of righteous conduct. That it is remedial in intent is evident from the expressed hope that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord. They could not escape the meaning of the solemn decree which Paul as the Lord’s inspired spokesmen sent to them in writing: For I, although absent in body, but present in spirit, have already passed judgment (decided the case), as if I were present, on the one who did such a thingthat is, in the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have gathered together, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to hand such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Their boasting over the superiority of one leader to the disparagement of another was not a very pretty thing. It had caused the church to be discredited in the eyes of the Gentile community. How then could they hope to win pagans to Christ? Didn-’t they know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? The whole church was condemned because it condoned the sin of one who was known as a brother. Following the analogy of the passover feast during which all leaven was excluded form the homes of God’s people, Israel, Paul commands the church to rid itself of this sin for Christ their passover had already been slain. They had been separated from sin when they became Christians; they should continue, not in sin, but in the new life with Christ. Paul explains that he had writtenin the preceding paragraph or in the lost epistlethat they were not to get mixed up with sinners. He did not mean that they were to get off the earth to avoid contact with evil. He had written to say that they should not get mixed up with an immoral person, or a covetous man, or an idol worshipper, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner who may bear the name of brother. No social contact that implied approval of such sinners was permitted. As to the outsider, Paul said, It is not for me to judge him. God will judge sinners in the day of the Lord, but the church is responsible for carrying out the directives of the Lord with respect to the sinful conduct of its members. Paul’s final word left no doubt about what they were to do. They were to remove the evil one from their midst and do it immediately. The nature of the sin demanded peremptory action by the whole church.