Paul’s solution is simple to the problem the young man having an incestuous affair with his step mother: expel/purge the sinful man from the congregation (5:4-5). As far as Paul is concerned, the man already stands condemned. Don Garland points out the perfect tense verb (κέκρικα) implies Paul has already made a judgment and his decision still stands when they read this letter (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 157). Does the verb imply Paul already told them to expel the man and they were resisting this decision?
Paul alludes to Deuteronomy 22:24 in his command to “purge the man from your midst.” Purge (Heb. בער, LXX ἐξαίρω) refers to driving something away, usually some sort of evil or sin (it is used in Deuteronomy nine times and in Isa 30:22 for “driving away” idols). Exodus 22:4 uses the same Hebrew word for driving someone’s animal from your vineyard and in 2 Chronicles 19:3 it refers to getting rid of idols before seeking God. Paul has the same idea in mind here: “exclude the man from the church.”
This is an example of church discipline, since the church is to gather to expel the young man from the church. But the way Paul describes this discipline is shocking: “hand the man over to Satan.” Since is the prince of this world, to hand someone over to Satan means “outside of the church.” Does this simply mean “kick him out of the church”” Or is Paul “revoking his salvation? The purpose cannot be a loss of salvation since the point of handing him over to Satan is remedial: that his soul might be saved on the day of the Lord.
But Paul also uses Passover language in this chapter. If someone was kicked out of the house during the first Passover, they would not be “under the blood of the Lamb” and therefore in danger from the Destroyer. If the immoral man is kicked out of the church (a family), he will be in the world without the protection of the blood of the Lamb, Jesus.
By becoming a Christian the young man already was on the “fringes of society as a religious misfit” (Garland, 1 Corinthians). If he were then expelled from the Christian community, it might be impossible for him to return to the pagan world he rejected. As Garland puts it, “expelled Christians in this era could find themselves in social limbo—neither fish nor fowl.”
The goal of this action is “the destruction of his flesh.” The Pauline use of σάρξ (sarx) is quite regular and usually means the sinful nature, although it is possible to use the word for physical body. It is possible Paul has in mind physical death, that the immoral man would suffer from a physical illness leading to his death. Garland examines this argument and ultimately rejects it. But there is some precedence for a sinner “being struck dead.” Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1–11). Later in 1 Corinthians Paul says some members of the congregation have died because of their abuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:30).
The noun ὄλεθρος does refer to physical death in the Septuagint (Exod 12:23; Josh 3:10; 7:25; Jer 2:30). In 1 Corinthians 10:10 Paul uses a related word ὀλοθρευτής, the Destroyer, a destroying angel who renders God’s judgment in the wilderness. More importantly is the use of the word in Exodus 12:23, the angel who destroyed the Egyptians at the first Passover. It would not be surprising for a Second Temple period Jewish thinker like Paul to see the man as sent into a demon-haunted world where he will suffer terrible things.
Others think Paul is talking about some sort of penance for his sin. The individual will be handed over to Satan for physical torment that will result in his repentance and a rejection of the particular offense. This remedial punishment may have in mind Job 2, where God hands Job over to Satan for a period of time (although I would disagree Job must suffer some some kind of purgatory like suffering because of his sin).
Whatever the phrase means, the point is the same: the man committing this sin must be expelled from the congregation by the whole congregation, for the good of the congregation.
Here is the real problem: is this a principle for dealing with church discipline, and if so, how do we apply that principle to contemporary church practice? This does not seem like a “love the sinner, hate the sin” situation. The sin Paul is dealing with is extreme and will destabilize the Christian community to the extent the sinner must be expelled.
Reblogged this on James' Ramblings and commented:
Reblogging for the information.
I wonder if the father’s wife has some responsibility here. John Hurd (The origin of 1 Corinthians p 137) suggests that exclusion from the Eucharist would produce sickness and death of the man in question. Also that his baptism in itself was sufficient to his eventual salvation.
It seems clear that this sin is to be judged by the congregation. It is not a case of ‘go and do thou likewise’ because that is an individual instruction. Possibly the expulsion will result in shame which will lead to a change in behaviour of the individuals. It does appear that this might have been the outcome 2 Cor 2:6-7). In a modern situation, there not being a single assembly, such discipline is not likely to be either well executed or well received.
I believe that there is defiantly a need for church discipline, but not every situation should be dealt with the expulsion of a person from the church body. I agree with Paul’s actions to remove this person from the church because one bad apple will spoil the whole bunch. As you stated above, “Perhaps Paul is talking about some sort of penance for his sin. The individual will be handed over to Satan for physical torment that will perhaps result in his repentance and a rejection of the particular offense.” It was obvious to Paul that this person needed reprimanding of the actions he was taking, and a simple request to stop would not be accepted. Verse 5 of 1 Cor. 5 says, “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” By this statement, I feel that Paul is not trying to punish him unjustly, but rather to let this man feel the consequences of his actions so that he can see what is wrong with the way he is behaving. Longenecker in his book TTP gives two implications of what Paul may be looking for when telling the Corinthians to expel this person. “First, it may result in the repentance of the sinner. Second, it will stop the contagion of sin from spreading further within Corinthian communities” (Longenecker, 122). Paul doesn’t want whatever sin this person is committing to go any further within the church. As a contemporary church We should always be looking to will of God and the desire to further His kingdom. When thinking like this, we should try and help the sinner past the sin they deal with, but if the sin draws too much attention away from the focus of God’s work, then we should take action as Paul did, and ask the person to leave.
The man here was clearly in the wrong. This was a sin that though he claimed to be a Christian he was living in a way that not even the pagans live (1 Cor 5:1). Paul’s concern was that this sin would infiltrate the church. Since the church is one body the whole body is impacted by the parts of the body (1 Cor 12:26). This man was claiming to be part of the body of Christ and still living in a way that went against the instruction that they had received. The church needed to expel this man since he was a danger to the congregation. Longenecker points out that the view may have been that since they were saved they could do whatever they wanted to since they are not under law (122). Paul however has expressed that this behavior is unacceptable. While Paul does speak very strongly on how the church is to deal with this issue, He also notes that it would be unreasonable to disassociate themselves with those in the world that do these things since they are not the church (1 Cor 5:11-13). Paul is still wants them to love those in the world. I think that church discipline would look very different in the church today. If a person were to be expelled from one church there are 10 other churches that would know nothing about the incident. That being said, I think it is important for churches to walk beside their brothers and sisters in Christ and encourage them to live the life God has for them as well as call them out on the sins that they are engaging in. I think there is a difference between a struggle that someone has and an outward lifestyle of sin. We must remember that after the process of discipline must come forgiveness as Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. We must be careful not to apply the same process of judgement to those in the world as it will hinder our ministry to them.
Not going to lie, this practice would be extremely difficult to integrate into the church today. It seems to have been institutionalized to the point that the goal is not to offend anyone. The Gospel is offensive, get over it! Some people will accept, some won’t. For the people who do accept, there needs to be a much more disciplined body. The church has become more complacent than ever, and the congregation seems to disregard church punishment. “It is not the pastors business to get into my personal life” says the modern church goer. Like you mentioned, it was an extreme sin that permeated the Corinthian church. Not using hierarchy of sin language is difficult here, but if the sin is destructive to the point of sowing discord or destroying the testimony of the church, it seems completely valid to excommunicate someone until they repent. The church is supposed to embody the Kingdom of God, and Paul “speaks the sins (including especially sexual sins) that exclude people from the kingdom of God” (TTP, p. 121) It is time to make valid our testimony and participate in the Kingdom of God.
We are often taught that judgment should be reserved for God since He is the ultimate judge (Rom 2:1-3). But Paul makes a very interesting statement in 1 Cor 5:3: “For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this”. Although this seems to be a contradiction, it is not. In Romans, Paul says that those who are judging are committing the same sin or have committed it before. Here, he is saying that the sin is so great that even pagans are pointing it out, but the believers are not saying anything. His reproach, however, is truly coming from an eternal perspective. Paul asks that he be “handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor 5:5a). Paul wants the flesh to die so the spirit will grow. He explains that the purpose is so that “his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:5b). He is not asking people to just judge the man because if pagans were judging the man, the Christians were most likely judging him in their hearts. Verse 2 possibly refers to them not saying anything to the “sinful” man or giving judgment out of love. In not speaking up against it, they are silently agreeing with this act and being “proud” instead of “mourning” (1 Cor 5:2).
Paul asks that the judgment be public within the church and have the purpose of saving the soul of the person. He believed that if Christians seek judgment in the court, they would be compromising the missionary witness of the Christian communities (Longenecker & Todd, 2014, p. 121).
Sometimes, we try to make this type of judgment and instead shun people out of churches and hurt that so much that they want nothing to do with Christ. People need to be corrected, and if it is a moral issue where pastors tell their sheep to have sex with them because that will make them holier, then this needs to be dealt with in court because they are leading people astray. This is also a person who has the word, knows better, and is taking advantage of people who they need to be taking care of. When it comes to a young lady who got pregnant, they should not be shunned but supported. Their souls are more important in the long run since it will become public anyway.
When it comes to supporting wealthy people versus poor people, the church supports a very obvious side. Wealthy people are considered the “fat sheep” since they often give more to the church. They are also able to afford more and have more power. The church does not want to go against them in case they stop giving or because they may have the power to cover up their sins. A poor Christian would not have a lot of money to deal with disputes in a court so are more often dealing with disputes within the church. Poor people are also more likely to get pregnant and get an abortion due to lack of sexual education, lack of finances for birth-control, and the cost of bringing up a child versus having an abortion. These problems may not be present in the rich world. Their reasoning would be different. Paul was a unique man because he was not afraid of anyone except God. He did not care about who was in power or who could hurt him, (Acts 18:9).
A matter that affected Paul’s time in Corinth was establishing discipline amongst their people. Longenecker asserts that the goal of calling out and excluding the young man was for him to repent for his sins, and to stop the spread of sin in Corinth (Longenecker, p. 122). In essence, Paul is making an example of this individual so that the people in Corinth knew the expectations of being in the presence of the Lord. At the same time, it is transparent Paul is making sure that this part of his ministry is not defined by the digression of this individual. However, as stated in 1 Corinthians 5: 4-5, the person is to be handed over to Satan so that he can be saved with the return of the Lord (NIV). In other words, Paul wants the person to use this experience as motivation to understand where his true foundation lies. By using extreme punishment, Paul is making sure that every person in Corinth recognizes the path not to follow. This connects to the contemporary practices of the Church, because of the lack of accountability amongst groups of believers. Ultimately, Paul’s extreme punishment is a model that is problematic but useful when rooting out significant problems in the Church.
I really like how you said that in doing this, Paul is making sure that the church knows not to follow the same path as this man. I think that in that especially for those who lived during that time, it would be very important that Paul made them understand what exactly was wrong and what was right, so that he could “stop the contagion of sin from spreading further within” the community (Longenecker, 122).
For the Corinthian church, many of the people were Gentiles. Not only that, but Longenecker tells us because of the location of Corinth, the “pagan environment clearly dominated” the culture (Longenecker, 110). The Corinthian church would have been exposed to the ways of the “pagans”, and many of them probably even grew up doing those same things. Because of this, I think that Paul needed to make the difference of wrong and right abundantly clear, and he needed to make sure they knew that there would be significant consequences to sinning. They needed to realize that to follow Christ meant that they couldn’t follow the ways of the world, and I think that Paul used the punishment of this man to reinforce this idea.
For us, this principle is hard to understand and figure out how to put into practice in our contemporary churches. I would like to think that we know the difference between right and wrong and that we are not tempted to the extent that the Corinthians would have been, but in reality, I think that we are just as tempted. We are surrounded by people and media who bombard us with sinful ideas and try to make us believe that they are not sins. So, I believe that we should do the same thing that Paul did, if the person was in a position where they could destabilize our church.
Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinner, Christ died for us.” I really found this post interesting. The teachings from the world is that if someone makes a mistake forgive him, and forget it. The reality is that if someone does something so evil that Paul needs to say this man is already judge they will do evil again. But what is intriguing to me is that Paul says “So when you are assembled…” Paul I think states this so that if one person were to “judge” this man there might be a bias, or self-perspective from a single person. If the assembly of the church were to judge this man together, with the presence of God it could be viewed as God working through the congregation to make this decision. To me the key phrase in these verses is not “So when you are assembled, and I am with you in spirit…” but “and the power of our Lord Jesus is present” To me if the presence of the Holy Spirit really is there and Father really does condemn this man than it is so. I do agree with Natalie’s post above, that Paul needed to get rid of the “grey” area in sinning. So he used a relevant example to give them with consequences to of disobeying God. That goes along with what the blog post mentioned about 1 Corinthians 11:30 regarding people died because of their sin against God. Every sin we have committed and will commit whether or not we know it or not has consequences. Now it may not be seen as in the old testament that if you were born blind, one of your parents committed a sin. But maybe as hurting someone, the sin becoming a habitual sin or you might get a negative view point from other Christians. But something that always will stick with me is the parable about the lost son. This sticks out to me for some reason, the son comes and and says this, “Father I have sinned against heaven and against you, I am no longer worthy to be called your son” Luke 21, and the father later replies with this, ” ‘For this son of mine was dead and is alive again, he was lost and now found’. So they began to celebrate” I remember this because when someone is not a Christian they are not ‘alive but dead’ and when someone wonders from a family or a righteous life they are not ‘found but lost’. This comes to mind for me when discussing sin and judgement from God and people.
It is interesting that this same thing happens today, sin has consequences. In this case it seems as though the punishment for the young man was a hard one to judge. The young man did a really bad thing but if you kicked him out of the church he could walk away forever. This day and age churches try to be very welcoming and warm to people. If an instance like this happened the last resort would be to kick someone out of the church. If I was a leader in that position I would try everything internally to help someone before I had to kick them out of the church. There could be other reasons that you can’t just keep someone that does stuff like this in the church around. You have to also think how this person hurt other people in the church and how that affects them having him around. According to (Longenecker 2014) “inaugrated eschatology. In this view of things, God’s plan of salvation has not yet been fully completed and involves patterns of lifestyle that run contrary to the way of honor”(p.119). I think we see that here in situations like this where people may just need more time to grow and mature to understand and obey God.
Sin is not free. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23, NIV). Ultimately we should die if we live in sin. If that were the case, then we should all be dead not only physically but spiritually. However, thanks to Christ Jesus we can have eternal life. Sadly, this gift is not received by everyone, in fact, some people can pull people further away from the Truth. This begs the question, what should we do if someone sins and that sin is forcing others to grow further away from God. Paul is saying here to get rid of him, to “deliver this man to Satan” (1 Corin. 5:5). However, is this right? Wouldn’t Jesus Christ go and help that man who is broken or lost? In my opinion, yes, he would go to the lost. The difference though is that he is perfect and does not sin, whereas we are born in sin and the only way out of that sin is through Jesus Christ. Thankfully for us, the work of Christ Jesus is still alive in the Holy Spirit. So, what Paul is saying here in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 is to leave it up to the Holy Spirit. There is nothing we can do that will save this man other than pray for Him. We need to let the Holy Spirit work in him/her and if it is God’s Will, he/she will repent and be saved.
The simple truth for today is that God has already chosen who He will save. Although we are called to make disciples and tell people about the Good News, some people will reject it and there is nothing we can do about it. We are to not get discouraged or lose faith trying to make that one person to believe, because sadly it may not be meant to be.
This is a hard topic as if you were to let the guy stay, others within the church may think it is okay to do what he did, but it is hard to just kick him out of the church. At this point, the man greatly needs the church and God to guide him back on the right track. I think that Paul needed to do this though as it set right from wrong in the church. Sin has consequences. God set guidelines and instructions on how to live a life pleasing to him and we are expected to follow them. We are granted grace though and God does forgive us for our sins. Professor Long states “But the way Paul describes this discipline is shocking: “hand the man over to Satan”.” (Long, 2019). This means they kicked him out of the church and also possibly cancelled his salvation. Although this does not mean his salvation was cancelled, he still has a chance to be saved on the day of the Lord. “First, it may result in the repentance of the sinner. Second, it will stop the contagion of sin from spreading further within the Corinthian Christian communities” (Longenecker, 122). If he gets turned over to Satan will he come back with repentance and begging for forgiveness? In the end, the boy is cancelled from the entire church. He needs to understand what he did was ungodly and disobedient to the Lord. I feel like in today’s church you cannot just kick someone out of the church without some help. This could jeopardize the entire man’s faith. As we know what he did was wrong but this is not uncommon in today’s society. People can be forgiven and he should not have his salvation taken away from him.
The problem that Paul is dealing with in verses four and five is a man having sexual relations with his father’s wife. For whatever reason, this man may have had the idea that because he was “sanctified” and not restrained by “the law” that he could partake in sexual immorality and be protected by God (TTP, 122). Paul would have none of that, thinking that the only option for the church was to kick this person out of the church, which would serve two purposes: repentance of the man and stopped spread of continued immorality within the church (TTP, 122). By kicking this man out of the church, he could then realize that his actions have consequences and what he is doing is wrong. Now, when Paul says to hand this man over to Satan, there are a few different interpretations to what this could mean. For one, it could mean that they were kicking him out of the church and into the world because Satan is the prince of the world (Long). The church would no longer have any relations with this man, and he would be left to the world to be make a way on his own. In regard to destruction of the flesh in verse five, Paul could have meant that he wanted this man to have a physical suffering and die from an illness or something of the sort (Long). There are also other stories in the Bbile where people sinned or disobeyed God and immediately died (Acts 5:1-11, Sodom and Gomorrah). Another interpretation is that this man would be handed over to Satan for torment and this in turn would lead to his repentance (Long). A different example of this can be found in Job, where God allows for Satan to torment Job, just as long is Satan does not kill Job (Long). Whatever the case may be, the important thing to learn from these two verses is sin of any kind should be dealt with and treated properly. God is a jealous God who wants to receive what is due to him, our worship and obedience to him. Obviously, sin is going to be ever present in our lives, that is true for all humans, but we can be accountable for each other and help each other out. Sometimes what we need to hear is the difficult conversations where we know we have done something wrong, but we do not want to be confronted about it. In the end, there is always someone out there who is dealing with the same struggles we are and we are never alone in the world.
I think that church discipline is something that needs to happen, but it is not just a simple rule where you can say yes or no. There are plenty of times where the church needs to step in and say specific things are wrong. On the other hand Jesus talks about forgiveness and how we need to forgive our brother. I think this case that Paul writes about is an extreme, but a good example. I believe it was the right decision to kick the man out of the church, only because they tried to bring him back. They wanted this man to change his ways. If they would have let this man continue with his affair with his mom’s wife it would appear that the church was fine with this affair. I think the moral of all of this is that we all know that these sins are not ok to indulge in or accept and that the church may need to kick someone out in extreme cases, but we should never give up on anyone. We need to always be showing other people God’s love, even if they have committed horrible atrocities.
Paul is dealing with a man that is having an affair with his fathers wife. And that was absolutely not okay and Paul had to do something about it. When Paul’s shows the church discipline I don’t think he was revoking his salvation or kicking him out of the church on purpose. I think it was simply holding his brother accountable sometimes people need harsh truths or they need to feel a little edge from someone to fully understand what they had done and the severity of it. .Church discipline is a necessity some times because if you don’t have order how will the church operate out of excellence. but with love and kindness do you draw people in. its just like a toddler they do things that are unacceptable and with proper discipline whether it is time out a pop on the hand or butt or just a talking too is necessary. they have to understand what they did was wrong and after the punishment you need to explain why they were disciplined. because with discipline and no understanding that could turn someone away from Christ in a hot second. But the good thing out of this was that the tried to bring the boy back to the church they wanted him to change his ways and become a better person. if they would have let him continue with his affair the church would have been looked down upon.
First off, there is no such ideology as “love the sinner, hate the sin.” The scriptures make it quite clear that all sinners are at enmity with the Lord and that no sinful being is able to have a relationship with the Lord because of our sinful nature; hence, why Jesus Christ was crucified. With this having been said, when Paul states to expel or purge the sinful man from the congregation (1 Cor. 5:4-5) Paul is condemning both the sin and the sinner. Just as it is written in 1 Corinthians 15:33 that “bad company corrupts good morals,” so Paul also recognized the effects of the sinful behaviors of the man and chose to have him expelled or purged from the congregation in order to not allow others to be influenced by the man’s sins. In regards to Paul’s statement that the man should be handed over to Satan, it seems evident that Paul is referring to letting the man be handed over to a depraved mind (Romans 1:28-32). Meaning, that because the man has chosen to continue in his sinful behavior, God has hardened his heart and has allowed the man to remain in his sinful nature. As for disciplinary actions, there are two forms of discipline. The first is the discipline of a Christian believer. For a Christian believer, they are to be disciplined and then if needed are to be removed from the congregation short term until they have repented and shown fruit of changed behavior. Then, after a while are allowed back into the congregation when church elders or pastors see appropriate. As for those who are non-believers, they are to be disciplined and removed from the church completely, especially if they refuse to acknowledge their sinful behavior and repent. Overall, Paul has dealt with the situation in a fitting manner in accordance with the scriptures.
I would agree that this scenario is far from our cliché phrase, “love the sinner, hate the sin,” because it appears that the congregation is accepting this man for who he is AND what he is doing. It seems as if they are loving the sinner and accepting/loving the sin. Now, this could be for a variety of reasons, many of which we have discussed in class, in that the stepmother is a wealthy patron of the church, or the church views support him as he “exercises his freedom in Christ.” Both of these reasons offer a valid explanation, at least to new, first-century believers, as to why someone would be doing such a heinous act. However, despite what this man is doing, Paul directs all of his focus and commands to the church instead of the man. I believe since Paul says that he has “already passed judgment on this man,” and essentially thrown him out already in his heart, he shifts his focus to the church to take the next steps. Since the man isn’t recognizing what he is doing as wrong, the church must do it for him by handing him over to Satan.
Although the majority of our modern churches are not boasting about the sin of one of their congregants, there can still be applications to our churches’ disciplinary actions. Our world is laden with sin, and our human nature prevents us from avoiding it altogether, which is why we must have grace for others within our Christian communities and contemporary church gatherings. However, should one of our fellow brothers or sisters begin boasting about their sin, or not feel any remorse for their disobedience to God, then I believe this passage, along with Matthew 18:15-17, permits us to cast them out. Since they clearly refuse the support of fellow believers and deny that they are wrong, there is no use in keeping them around the church, lest they corrupt the minds of weaker believers around them who may join them in their ignorance.
When you talk about the old testament references to the word for “drive out” used in this passage, I started thinking about the common reaction in the first century to someone with leprosy. First, one with leprosy was driven out of town. This was done for the safety of the rest of the population, who would have been in danger of catching the disease as long as the leper was still in town. To me, the passage here evokes the same sort of urgency. “Unclean!” Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they shouldn’t even have to think about the situation; there is an obvious course of action they should be taking. This issue Paul is addressing here is not the person committing this act (although he does also condemn him here) but the church that should know better.
You also question the meaning of this passage in the context of church discipline. I agree that driving someone out of the church is an extreme action to take, but I can imagine a situation where this could be a reasonable action. I think the reason Paul recommends this course of action to the Corinthians is not because they had a sinner in their church (Indeed, are not all followers of Christ sinners?) but because the church was endorsing these sins. This man was not just a sinner but an unrepentant sinner, boasting in his sins “that grace may abound.” This reflected poorly on the church’s image to the rest of the world. If such scandal as there is in this situation is allowed for so brazenly within the church, then that will be the church’s reputation.
The wording Paul uses when he says that they should give the man over to Satan is somewhat confusing. This could possibly mean the loss of his salvation or it could mean to throw him out of the local church. But, because Paul says that it is supposed to be a remedial punishment, I agree that it could not mean that he was going to lose his salvation, if he had it in the first place. Whatever interpretation that it is, the man still must be kicked out of the church. I agree that this does not seem like a love for the sinner, not the sin type of situation. It seems that to Paul, there is a level of sin that requires a deeper level of punishment than other sins do. I think that this has to do with how that sin affects the church. I agree with saying that if a sin is so deep and destructive that it causes damage to the church then the sinner must be thrown out of it. I do not think that this practice is not really used enough in the church. I know one church that was in my city back home split because two people had an affair with their spouses within the church. Some leadership wanted to throw them out while others said that it was too harsh. I think that this level of punishment is valid and should be used.
As always, this post offers a variety of interesting questions to be asked. One of the main questions that was proposed in this post is whether or not Paul was speaking about this man losing his salvation or just being cast out of the local church. I believe that Paul was speaking on the latter. Casting this sin out of the church can be a healthy thing for the church community (the sin being expelled would certainly make it easier to follow Christ), but what about the individual? I believe the main focus of this should be at the end of the passage. At the end of verse 5 Paul says to hand him over to Satan to destroy his flesh so in the end his spirit can be saved. In order to understand this, maybe we should look at other letters from Paul. In Ephesians 6, Paul gives a list of commands that are focused on spiritual wellness. Children obey your parents, fathers do not provoke your children, etc. (Eph. 6:1-4). He then finishes the epistle by commanding a series of actions and tools a believer can use to be able to battle the real spiritual battle that is ongoing. Reflecting this idea back to the Corinthian church, could casting that man out to destroy his flesh, allow the church to have an example of the spiritual battle that is ongoing as in Ephesians? This could be a common them in Pauline literature.
For me this whole issue sheds light on a false dichotomy wrongly construed in understanding God’s love and wrath. As fallacious humans, we tend to misunderstand and therefore misrepresent God’s character as contradictory. For example, if God is perfect in love and mercy, why does He allow evil, and also why does he hate sin? How could God allow Paul to command this man to be given over to Satan if he loves everyone? Often, we see things in scripture that make us question God’s judgement. The issue with this is the finiteness of the human brain. We simply cannot understand God in his entirety. What we can and should understand however, is that God is perfect and holy in his attributes and how they relate to one another. This being added to the Corinthian church situation in 1 Cor. 5 can very well stand as a good example to cast sin out of our own lives and live more spiritually after God. We then will be able to set the example for others that are struggling too.
It seems like quite the hard area as a believer to express discipline against a brother or sister in Christ. It’s one thing to walk your walk on your own and try to follow the teachings of Scripture, but to reprimand another and risk being called a hypocrite can create a lot of anxiety, and it has for me personally. Yet it is above all absolutely necessary to remember when speaking to them that they have the same Holy Spirit as you do ( 1 Cor. 3:16). Therefore, when you speak to them, you are also speaking to God who is in them. How would you speak and correct that is both God honoring and loving of the individual. I think about the passage of Jesus speaking to the woman caught in adultery, he gave her grace in encouraging against the stoning, and truth in telling her to go forth and sin no more. It is a both and, you can be gracious in how you correct one another, but also must break fellowship with any who are leading others astray in a big way. Breaking the fellowship is ideally there to accomplish two goals, lead the sinner to repentance and to stop the congregation from falling into the same pattern (Longenecker, 122).
I believe that Paul was correct in that the boy needed to be kicked out of the church to learn his lesson, however, I believe that the way Paul describes the disciplinary action of the young boy is slightly harsh. Although the boy committed a sin, I still believe that he has a chance to redeem himself. Kicking him out of the church is one thing, but handing him over to Satan seems to be what the devil would want. I do not think that God would want any one of His children to be sent to Satan, especially someone who has a lot of life left to turn his life around. I do not agree with the boy’s actions and I find it very disturbing that he had these sexual relations with his stepmother, however, we all have committed various sins in our lifetime, does this mean we all need to be handed over to Satan? I believe Paul has come to a sort of extremist view of sin in this moment and he truly believes that this sin was worthy of the boy being handed over to Satan. I believe, however, that all people deserve a chance in life and that even though he made these mistakes, he still has time to learn from them and find God.