LESSON 7
(5:1-13)

INCEST AND EXPULSION

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.  2 And you are arrogant!  Ought you not rather to mourn?  Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3 For though absent in body In am present in spirit, and as if present, In have already pronounced judgement 4 in 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, 5 you 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?  7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened.  For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.  8 Let 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.
9 In wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10 not 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.  11 But rather In 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 robber–not even to eat with such a one.  12 For what have In to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  13 God judges those outside.  “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

The authority of the apostle, and that of the message he preached, and his particular relationship to the congregation now established, Paul begins to deal with specific questions the Corinthians had asked him, or to discuss problems (such as that brought up in 1:10ff.) within the church.  The sectarian spirit having been considered, chapters five and six bring up a moral laxness on the part of the congregation.  As we study these areas, we will notice that as problems of humanity really do not change, God’s solutions form those problems of humanity really do not change, God’s solutions for those problems are as relevant now as then.
5:1 – The problem of incest (sexual relationships within a family) has reached Paul’s ears.  We do not know if someone wrote about it, or someone told Paul about it.
immorality  – The term in Greek is porneia, a general term relating to sexual problems of varied nature.  It is used in the N.T. in several forms.  Check these tests for it: Mt. 5:32; 19:9; 21:31; Mk. 7:21; 10:19; Lk. 15:30; Jn. 8:41; Acts 1`5:20; In Cor. 6:13, 15, 18; 7:2; 10:8; II Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5; In Tim. 1:10; Heb. 11:31; 12:16; Jam. 2:25; Rev. 2:21; 14:8; 17:1, 2, 5, 15; 18:3, 9; 19:2; 22:15.  As a general rule, the term adultery is used in a more narrow sense, denoting immoral relationships involving a married person or persons.  See on 6:9 for it.
of a kind – The particular problem wasn’t considered normal among any culture and everyone knew it.  The O.T. had strictly forbidden it, Lev. 18; 22; Deut. 22.  What made the situation worse was that it was wrong, everyone knew it, it had been going on and was continuing with nothing being done about it.
father’s wife  – Most take this to mean the man’s step mother.  Another point in doubt is if she were Christian or not.  The action expected of the congregation only involved the man.  Hence, most assume that the man was Christian, the woman not so.  We know nothing about the man’s father.
arrogant – See on 4:6, 18, 19, where “puffed up” was also used.  Note 8:1.  Their many gifts from God (1:7) were not proof against such sinfulness withing their midst.  God does not do, as a rule, what we must do for ourselves, either individually or as a body of believers.
to mourn – This verse outlines how far removed they were form what should have been so.  Sin bodes only ill in any life unless handled correctly.  It may be a means of great defilement (as in Exodus 32) or a springboard for renewed spirituality (as in Acts 5).
Let him . . . be removed – Every congregation and Christian must work at the task of making meaningful the relationship with Christ and each other.  If this is not done, then no lass will be felt when a member leaves, which is as tragic as the loss of the member.  In the Corinthian situation, action (such as “mourning” about the sin) should have been taking place long before the situation came into the state Paul presents.  The expulsion of the man might have been avoided, but the high ideals of the Christian faith would have been upheld whatever else took place.
V. 3 – Paul’s statement in v. 2 indicated that the time for drastic measures was at hand.  If the brethren could not bring themselves to follow the necessary steps, or were possibly ignorant of what should be done, Paul was adequate for the task.
In have already pronounced judgement – As Jesus promised in Mt. 18:18 and other texts, the apostles would be directed into the appropriate action by God’s direction.  In this case, God’s direction was expulsion of the man in question.  It wasn’t as if Paul had “prejudged” the case; it was rather that the case was of such nature that nothing less than expulsion would suffice.
Let these points be made: the action commanded was for several reasons, among them 1) the preservation of the purity of the church ( read again 3:16-17), and 2) help for the individual.  Some of the ideas suggested above are also relevant, such as the recognition of the gravity of sin as well as the ideal for which the Christian should strive.  the power of Satan upon a person’s thinking and resultant life-style is clear also.
V. 4 – in the name – This phrase equals “by the authority” of Jesus.  Since Paul claimed divine direction, this was only appropriate to say.  If you are using some other version of the Bible that Revised Standard, you may notice some difference in the handling of this phrase.  R.S.V. and K.J.V. take it one way, N.I.V. and N.A.S.B. take it another way.  Either choice can be defended as far as the Greek text goes.  Consequently, it is the translator’s choice.  There is, however, little difference in the ultimate end of the action.
When you are assembled – While Paul could command as an apostle, it was yet the responsibility of the local congregation to take care of the actual situation.  There is on scripture for any congregation imposing itself upon another one.  All congregations are equal in this respect: for each is an individual unit within a collective whole.  Jesus is the head of the whole body as well as the individual units.  He has the only authority in any matter, since “all” authority was given to him, Mt. 28.  He sent the apostles with a delegated authority for the task of “laying out” what He had taught or what was to be revealed through them.  As Paul directed Timothy and Titus, and as is evident throughout the Acts history and the epistles, each local group had an eldership to be responsible for it.  However, nothing is taught that would indicate that any local eldership had any authority over another group.  naturally, while the apostles were alive, their authority was to be recognized, and obeyed.  If the church in Antioch of Syria had recognized this point, they would have accepted Paul’s teaching on the issue in Acts 15.  However, it was God’s will for the issue to be discussed at Jerusalem, as is evident from Gal. 2:2.  The decision that was reached there was through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and thus a divine directive for every church, as Acts 15:23 and 16:4 show.
with the power – Paul made it perfectly clear both the action to be taken and the authority for the action.
V. 5 – to deliver – Note the Greek term paradid_mi has the idea of “handing over” or “delivering” as in Mt. 10:19; 15:20; 26:2; Mk. 7:13; Lk. 1:2; 4:6; 22:22; Jn. 19:30; Acts 3:13; 12:4; 14:26; 15:40; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; Eph. 4:19; In Tim. 1:20; In Pet. 2:23; II Pet. 2:21.
to Satan – While this action may seem harsh, the fact of the matter is that anyone who is not in the kingdom of Christ is in Satan’s kingdom.  Hence, to withdraw fellowship was to automatically place the person in Satan’s kingdom.  No other state is possible except to be in Christ or not in Christ.
for the destruction of the flesh – The action was to bring the man in question to his right mind.  The “flesh” was ruling the “spirit” and that had to be changed.  The Christian is “spirit-controlled” from within, the body given over to serving God, Rom. 6:13.  Thus the intended result was to bring the man to realize he was not his own, but having been bought with a price, was to glorify God in his body, 6:19-20.
The Greek term translate destruction is olethros, which has primarily the idea of punishment or torment.  See especially In Tim. 1:20 for a parallel idea.  Read In Cor. 10:10; In Thess. 5:3; II Thess. 1:9; In Tim. 6:9; Heb. 11:28.  In essence, it needed to be for the man as Paul wrote in Rom. 12:1-2; and as he described himself in Gal. 2:20.  Jesus taught that self must be denied, Mt. 16:24-26; Lk. 14:26-33; and practiced it in His prayer life, Mt. 26:39 and by a decision of His will, Heb 10:7.  Nothing less can be satisfactory to God in the final analysis, or will accomplish the transformation that is expected, II Cor. 10:5; Eph. 4:11-13.  We enter the kingdom of Christ by crucifixion of self and through arising in newness of life, becoming a new creation, Rom. 6:3-6; II Cor. 5:17.  We must make every effort to maintain that status, while allowing God to work within us so that a day by day change can come about, II Cor. 3:18.  Obviously the man in question had been doing none of the above.
spirit may be saved – This, of course, was the hoped-for result of the action.  Whether it happened that way or not is unknown.  Some people take II Cor. 2:5-11 as referring to this person, but others are unsure if not against the idea.  Regardless of the fact that we can’t settle that point, the instance in II Corinthians represents the desired end of such proceedings.  As Paul put it, “to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us.”
The general concept of church discipline has been at issue here.  However, we should realize that the action to be taken was the last resort, not the first.  There are several steps that God’s Word contains that are to be taken prior to such action.  Mt. 18:15-35 gives Jesus’ own teaching on the subject.  The first step is a “one to one” basis, with the intended result “to gain the brother,” Mt. 18:15.  Notice that sin must be involved, not just a slight or disagreement (though such things should be handled as potential trouble makers).  A second step is with witnesses.  The third sept, if required, is expulsion (our term would be disfellowship or ex-communication) from the local assembly.
A somewhat different situation is II Thess. 3:6-15, where a modified disciplinary move is made, bu the person in question is still a brother, v. 15.
When we think of church discipline, we normally think of disfellowshipping someone.  While that is included, discipline rightly viewed is a much larger process than that.  Discipline has its root in disciple, and to disciple a person involves the whole gamut of bringing someone to Christ (Jesus’ first command was to make disciples, Mt. 28:19), then after immersion into Christ as a result of teaching, the discipling process goes on until maturity is attained.  Actually, the years Jesus spent with the disciples turned apostles were years of discipling.  The epistles in the N.T. are intended to teach and train disciples to become better disciples.  As was pointed out on 4:15, the Greek term used in Heb. 12ff.  paidag_gos is inclusive of all aspects of child rearing, whatever might be needed as necessary.  Expulsion from fellowship is only the last step when nothing else is left and all else has failed.  Way back in 1894, W.L. Hayden in his Church Polity wrote that church discipline . . .

“includes the whole work of educating, training, admonishing and correcting the members of the church in all things that pertain unto life and godliness; as well as the exclusion of the members who are disorderly and refractory.  Many persons think of discipline in the church as only the turning out of unworthy members.  Now, while church discipline includes exclusion, when that is necessary, that is but a small part of the work involved, and that work is not to be done until the other parts of the work has been performed.”

(For a good mimeographed essay on this whole subject, write to O.C.C. bookstore in Joplin, MO. for George Mark Elliott’s article on “Discipline Restored To Its Proper Place.”) For some other texts related to this whole issue, read Luke 17:1-10; Acts 20:18ff.; Rom. 16:17-20; II Cor. 7:2-16; Gal. 2:11-21; 6:1-5; Col. 2:20-3:17; In Thess. 5:14-15; II Tim. 2:24-26; Titus 3:10-11; Jude vv. 22-23.  The various instructions to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are helpful.
We must remember that any or all of this is to be done in love with the attitude of a father to a child, as Hebrews 12 declares.  The congregation should be so united that, while the elders lead out, all will be involved and supportive of discipling every member.
V. 6 – boasting – The probable reference is to that expressed by Paul in 4:7-8.  There might be a legitimate reason to boast, Rom. 5:2, but the line is narrow and the ice thin between boasting fairly and being puffed up.
the whole lump – The exclusion of the one was for the good of all.  The body must be salvaged if at all possible even if a member must be excised, Mt. 5:27-30; Mk. 9:42-50; for the reason pointed out in our text.
V. 7 – The imagery of the Old Covenant is seen here.  The Jewish folk were to cleanse their houses of all leaven at Passover time, Ex. 12:15ff.; 13:7; etc.  The time of cleansing was at hand, and such action symbolized a new start with a clean slate.  The Corinthians had been cleansed of all their sin, and given a fresh start.  Such persons as they were allowing to remain in their midst would more than likely involve others and produce less than the desired results.
V. 8 – They, therefore, should be making every effort to clean up their collective house, eliminating every possible source of defilement that might undo God’s work among them (ref. again 3:6-17).  A transparent sincerity and a steadfast adherence to truth must mark their thoughts and deeds if they were tp please God.  While some take this verse to refer to communion time, it is more likely that the whole Christian life is meant.
V. 9 – A previous letter to them had been misunderstood by some, so Paul clarifies what he had written.
to associate – As in Jn. 17, in Jesus’ prayer, Paul recognizes that Christians must live in this world and among people who are largely non-Christian.  Christians must “mingle” in some respects in order to leaven the lump, be salt and light.  What Paul meant, then, is explained in v. 11.
to associate  – This word has the idea of mingling or mixing.  Consider this from Mt. 27:34; Lk. 13:1; II Thess. 3:14; Rev. 8:7; 15:2.  The text in II Cor. 6:14-7:1 bears directly on this point.
immoral – See on v. 1.
V. 10 – greedy – This word is always in bad company, as in 6:10 or Eph. 5:5.  It means someone who is never satisfied, always wanting more, and basically indifferent to how the “more” is obtained.  Read Mk. 7:22; Lk. 12:15; Rom. 1:29; II Cor. 9:5; Col 3:5; II Pet. 2:3, 14.
robbers – Like the above word, this term describes a person who takes what doesn’t belong to him.  Jesus used it in Mt. 7:15 in reference to false prophets.  Consider it in Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; 18:11; Jn. 10:12, 28; II Cor. 12:2, 4; Heb. 10:34; 11:39.
idolater – These three words make up a terrible crowd, a crowd with which no Christians should be mixed; yea, they represent flaws in character of which on Christian should be guilty.  Such people were doubtless all around Corinth, in the shops and on the job, just as they are today.  Few Christians have any choice about contact with such people.  However, no Christian needed to be like anyone but Jesus, regardless of the surroundings.  Every child of God could abhor evil and cling to good.
V. 11 – Now Paul identifies specifically what was in his first letter such things should not be characteristic of a brother, and no other brother ought to accept such things as the norm for anyone in Christ.  In fact, the response should be both reproof and restraint, reproof of the sin and restraint in fellowship, specifically in such common cultural exchanges as eating together.  Now we assume that the Corinthians would know those of whom Paul spoke, and would act accordingly.  We also assume that the “eating” in some way indicated acceptance rather than abhorrence of the person who was immoral, etc.  Hence, we need to get the lesson clearly and apply it the best way we can in our time to accomplish the same purpose.
reviler – This term was in 4:12, and carries the idea of insulting speech directed against another, as in Jn. 9:28; Acts 23:4; In Tim. 5:14; In Pet. 2:23; 3:9.
drunkard – Some of the Corinthian Christians had been such persons.  Every culture has this problem, but one: the Christian culture.  While we may have a bit of difficulty deciding what a drunkard is (i.e., a person who takes one drink now and then, or whatever), the clear teaching of God is that drunkards are not welcome in His presence.  Since this be so, we must not be of such a mind as to test God, playing “Russian roulette” with our redemption.  Abstention on our part is the only safe course, and reduced fellowship with those who participate in such.
In all this, nothing has been said about the attitude that one is to have toward such people as Paul named.  Jesus wasn’t guilty of any of these things, but in some way associated with them, as His accusers said, Mt. 11:19.  He loved them all but kept Himself pure of their sin.  Perhaps the text in Jude vv. 22-23 indicates the “way” one is to act in such circumstances.  In any case, a balance must be struck between the injunctions in v. 10 and v. 11.  Let it be as clear as possible where the Christian stands in respect to all such matters.
V. 12 – The import seems to be that Paul can’t change the people around to such an extent that ll conform to his life style.  He doesn’t have to conform to theirs, however, if it is unchristian.  God will take care of the ones not Christian; the task Paul was laying upon the brethren was in respect to themselves and the body of which they were a part.
V. 13 – Repeating the point in v. 1, something definite was to take place in respect to the problem in question.  God expected the brethren to act.  To teach all Christians and, if necessary, exclude those who are not willing to leave behind such things as are mentioned is as much a command of God as anything else in Scripture.  All sorts of explanations and objections have been and are raised, but the Scripture is clear and still in force.  Christians ought to obey in this area as in all other areas.  Read Deut. 17:1ff. for a somewhat parallel text.

LESSON 7 QUESTIONS

1.  Define discipline, including all that is involved in the term.

2. What is your congregation doing that would be considered discipline?

3. While Paul could write to the Corinthians with authority, who had to take the action?

4. For what purposes was the action to be taken?

5. Have you written out the “steps” Jesus gave in Mt. 18 for handling such a matter?

6. State and define the specific word (it has three letters) that Jesus used in Mt. 18:15 that would bring about the confrontation between two Christians.

7. Suggest a possibility as to why the woman and the father/husband were not considered by Paul.

8. Paul was so worried about how the Corinthians would react that he sent both Timothy and Titus to Corinth.  Now read II Cor. 7:2-16 and see what his feelings were and what the church did.

9. How do you strike a balance between being “in” the world but not “of” the world? (More on this point in 6:12-20)

10. Is it possible for Christians to honestly disagree over just how the balance in question 9 is to be done?