1 Corinthians 5

1 Corinthians 5 (Church discipline)

Why isn’t the woman mentioned in this case of church discipline? Morris believes that this could be because she wasn’t a believer (“for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” v.12),[] which could be quite possible.

(5:1) “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles that someone has his father’s wife.”

Roman law prohibited this type of relationship. Johnson writes, “Roman law (not Greek law) prohibited such a union even when the father was dead.”[]

“Someone has his father’s wife.” This is an odd way of saying that this is the man’s biological mother. More likely, this is his stepmother.[]

The term “has” is a present active infinitive (“having”). Grammatically, this means that the man is continuing to sleep with her, and this is “an enduring sexual relationship, not just a passing fancy or a ‘one-night stand.’”[] Therefore, this isn’t a “fall from grace,” but an ongoing rebellious attitude.

(5:2) “You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.”

“You have become arrogant.” Paul already called out these “arrogant” people, claiming that he would be coming to them soon (1 Cor. 4:18). The Corinthians prided themselves with knowledge, but they couldn’t handle such a clear ethical situation. In fact, they landed on the completely wrong side of the issue, celebrating this rather than “mourning” over it.

 “[You] have not mourned instead.” Why do we mourn when someone has fallen into sin? Seeing your brother in flagrant sin hurts because you care. You care about the person, and you care about the church. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “Who is led into sin without my intense concern?” (2 Cor. 11:29)

“So that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.” Paul is not only upset with the man sleeping with his stepmother; he is upset with the entire Christian community. Why hadn’t anyone stepped forward in this situation already?

(5:3) “For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.”

Paul heard a clear report (presumably from Chloe’s people, 1 Cor. 1:11) about the details surrounding this situation. He claims that he was in a position to judge what happened. Paul was present in spirit with these believers (cf. Col. 2:5).

(5:4-5) “In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus. ⁵ I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

This is an example of proper spiritual authority. Leaders do not have authority in areas that are secular (e.g. choosing a dating partner, what job to choose, what house to buy, etc.), but they do have authority when it comes to spiritual areas (e.g. church discipline, teaching, leading fellowship, etc.). Even though Paul is only there “in spirit” (v.3), he is commanding them to assemble to remove this brother. Paul casts his vote that the man should be removed from fellowship (“removed from your midst,” v.2; “deliver such a one to Satan,” v.5).

“Destruction of his flesh” shows that this is restorative in nature. Paul’s intention is to remove this man “from the community in order to destroy his sinful orientation so that he himself might be saved on the Day of the Lord.”[]

This sort of meeting should happen “when you are assembled” together as a church. This implies that the church should meet together to perform church discipline.

 (5:6) “Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?”

Paul’s central issue is with the attitude of the church—perhaps even more than the sin itself. While “leaven” sometimes carries a positive meaning (Mt. 13:33), it usually refers to sin in Scripture. Jesus said, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Mt. 16:6; cf. Gal. 5:9). In this context, Paul definitely has sin in mind. He calls it the “leaven of malice and wickedness” (v.8). Soards writes, “In antiquity yeast was a common image for a small matter that had the potential to affect a much larger or more significant situation.”[] In this situation, if the church took a lax attitude toward such a flagrant, ongoing, and objective sin, they would risk collapsing from within, looking and acting no differently than the Corinthian culture around them.

(5:7) “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.”

“You are in fact unleavened.” In our identity, we are unleavened (i.e. blameless and holy; Eph. 1:3ff). Here Paul calls the people to line up their position with their condition (“Clean out the old leaven”).

“Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.” Jesus fulfilled the celebration of the Passover through his death on the Cross (see Exodus 12:1-22, “Does the Passover foreshadow the work of Christ?”).

(5:8) “Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

The term “celebrate” is present in the continuous tense in Greek (“keep on celebrating”).[] The Passover was once a year for the Jewish people, but Paul says that the believer continues to celebrate this because of the work of Jesus.

When this man was perpetually sleeping with his step-mother (“someone keeps on having his father’s wife…”), this led to rank hypocrisy. Paul wants them to have a change of mind and focus on the “sincerity and truth” that comes with confronting hypocrisy like this. Since Christianity is a system of “truth,” believers have a basis for objective moral values and duties. These aren’t arbitrary, but rather, these are based on God’s unchanging moral nature.

(5:9) “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people.”

Paul must have written an earlier letter to the Corinthians, which we do not possess.

(5:10) “I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.”

“You would have to go out of the world.” Church discipline is not for non-Christians. It is only for Christians who claim to be believers. Believers shouldn’t try to leave the world (cf. Jn. 17:15).

(5:11) “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

“So-called brother” (onomazomai adelphos) means “to give a name to” (BDAG). This means that Paul is teaching church discipline for anyone who is claiming to be a Christian. Are they truly regenerate? Paul doesn’t know, and neither do we in some cases. The criterion Paul gives is whether themselves claim to know Christ.

“Immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler.” Some argue that formal church discipline is only for sins that our culture would reject. They appeal to verse 1 to make this case (“immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles”). Not true. Paul gives a list of serious and damaging sins that would qualify for church discipline—even though all of these would be considered absolutely normal in Corinthian culture.

“Not even to eat with such a one.” Paul later writes that it’s good to eat with non-Christians (1 Cor. 10:27). The point here is that we don’t want to associate with believers who are in a state of rank hypocrisy. In the ancient world, eating with a person implied having a close friendship with them. This is why it was so scandalous for Jesus to enter the houses of “sinners,” or for Peter to enter the house of Cornelius the Roman centurion. Paul is, therefore, communicating that we shouldn’t have a casual relationship with someone removed from fellowship.

(5:12) “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?”

Ironically and sadly, Christians spend their time judging non-Christians, but rarely have the integrity to properly judge fellow Christians. We agree with Bruce Winter, who writes, “The ease with which the present day church often passes judgment on the ethical or structural misconduct of the outside community is at times matched only by its reluctance to take action to remedy the ethical conduct of its own members.”[]

(5:13) “But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”

Paul concludes by citing Deuteronomy 17:7. In its original context, Deuteronomy 17 referred to capital punishment (Deut. 17:5) for the sin of idolatry (Deut. 17:3). Paul reinterprets this old covenant teaching in light of the new covenant: We don’t practice capital punishment for idolatry; instead, we practice church discipline. The use of discipline is not judgment. Jesus paid for the judgment we deserve at the Cross, and God will bring judgment on non-Christians. In the context of the church, our role is to avoid flagrant, ongoing, and objective hypocrisy. Ironically, and sadly, the Christian church has done just the opposite: They picket non-Christians for their sins, but overlook the hypocrisy among their own members.

Discussion Questions

Why does Paul address the church, rather than addressing the incestuous man in verse 1?

What might have motivated the Corinthian Christians to refuse to discipline this man? What are potential factors that might have led to a permissive attitude toward an incestuous relationship?

How would you respond to the common claim, “Who are you to judge someone else?”

Commentator Leon Morris seems to wrestle with the application of this chapter. He writes, “The application of all this to the modern scene is not easy. Our different circumstances must be taken into account. But Paul’s main point… is clearly permanently relevant.”[] Why is it that most churches in the Western world do not practice church discipline?

What is at stake if we don’t ever decide to practice church discipline?

Modern people might disagree with the biblical teaching on removing someone from fellowship, arguing that this is only pushing people further into their problems. How might you respond to this assertion?