Bible Groups

Chapter 5

Basic theme of Chaps 5 & 6: the purity of the community: what does it mean to be God’s holy people - set apart?
1 Paul now turns to several other matters which he has heard about - possibly from “Chloe’s people”. The holy must be separated from the unholy - “holy” means set apart. As in the previous chapters, Paul asserts his authority from a distance. Paul uses their tolerance of an example of incest to demonstrate their spiritual immaturity. This type of incest - man with “father’s wife” ie step-mother - is apparently condemned by Jews and Gentile alike. Presumably the man’s father had died, after a second marriage to perhaps a younger woman, and the son wished to marry this step-mother. Previous relationships do matter, and marrying such a degree on kindred was forbidden by the mosaic law (Lev 18:8, 20:11) This betrays Paul’s Jewish upbringing: although Paul claims Gentiles also prohibit such a marriage (Euripides, Cicero), and it was forbidden by Roman law, although not all Gentiles had the same attitude (eg Egyptian royal family). It appears that Gentile converts had mistakenly taken Paul’s proclamations of freedom to mean they were freed from the old rules of behaviour - they are not! Paul opens in a rhetorically standard way - with the facts, which necessarily included stating their ethical status - in this case immorality.
2 They are inflated with pride, apparently tolerating and even approving the infection in their midst, thinking themselves as above the usual taboos and having enough knowledge to ignore ethical norms. (Cf 8:1-2; 4:6-18). It may be that they had simply tolerated this behaviour, which is still wrong in Paul’s eyes. But they may even have taken pride in it, as an example of their new-found freedom as spiritual persons to set aside normal society rules.
3 While those who were present failed to take action, Paul, even though at a distance, feels authorised to pronounce excommunication, and has already passed judgement.
4 Paul orders them to deliver a very formal sentence, in the hope that he will be saved. They are to assemble, on the Lord’s authority, and in the light of the eschaton (v. 5), and - with Paul present in spirit - very formally pronounce verdict and deliver sentence in Jesus’ name, and with His power. This is not so much an ecclesiastic court, as the community acting prophetically by pronouncing in advance of the second coming what they believe will then be God’s verdict. (Lev 18:29)
5 The sinner should be expelled from the church into the outside, which is the realm of Satan - but still subject to the power of Christ. The overriding aim is to keep the community pure and so its own salvation. The aim for the sinner is medicinal: affliction should destroy sin’s grip over him, leading him to return. Affliction in this sense may be similar to that suffered by Job - Satan could afflict his body, for the good of his soul, but could not finally capture his soul. Paul’s own ‘thorn in the flesh’ was ‘a messenger of Satan’ (2 Cor 12:7). If we take it that here Paul is contrasting ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’, this would imply that Paul shared such a dualistic view of human beings with both the Corinthians and us. But Paul does not - he has an integrated view of humans. Also such a view would imply a process in which the church expelled the sinner, but left it to God to gain reconciliation. (But God has only our hands to do his work on earth - St Teresa). So it is more likely that by “flesh” Paul means here our creatureliness and frailty; and by “spirit” Paul means our capacity for fellowship with God. Hence Paul seems to mean that ‘the destruction of the flesh’ means doing away with the old self-centred way of life - the crucifixion of the old nature, with its passions and desires (Gal 2:19f, 5:24, 2 Cor 5:14f). Paul is assuming that the judicial procedure will be accepted by the offender in a spirit of penitence. It will be effective in saving the sinner from being ‘condemned with the rest of the world’ (1 Cor 11:32) only if it is effective as a discipline, ie brings the sinner to a penitent acceptance of God’s judgement. Surely this is the sense in which ex-communication is used today? Contrast this excommunication ritual with 2 Cor 2:5-11. The practical effects of excommunication at this time would have been huge - dropped into pagan society without any support. And he would no longer have the physical resources to do God’s work. But the alternative may be complete loss of his soul, if no action is taken. Notice that the Church is not - and has no power to - hand the sinner over to damnation - only God can do that Satan has no power to take salvation away. But Satan’s afflictive power is part of God’s purposes/plan (Cf Job 2:5). Paul’s own “thorn in the flesh” is “a messenger of Satan” (2 Cor 12:7). Neither Job nor Paul were being punished for sins, but were being purified by God to be better servants. We also notice that it is the Christian duty of the whole community - not its leadership - to exercise this judicial authority - in this case of determining who are inside the community, and who should be expelled because their actions have brought the community into disrepute. But there are many practical difficulties in seeking to do this. But what does tolerance of visible sinful behaviour say about the community?
6 Paul uses 2 arguments: the need to keep the community holy, untarnished, like the temple of God which it is; and the death of Christ as the sacrificial lamb. But it is not only the sinner who needs attention - the effect on the Church community must also be addressed. It is not boasting in itself that is ‘not good’, but what is boasted about is not good. Yeast is a symbol for a small corruption which can become all-pervasive. They are not immune from the world or the desires of the flesh - they can be contaminated by this sinful example in their midst. One rotten apple can contaminate other. Also by boasting about it, they were admitting evil into their own lives. They think they are sufficiently spiritual that behaviour does not matter. They are wrong, and this shows their immaturity and lack of true wisdom. He is also concerned that scandal in this fledgling community can harm other churches and missions, and potentially damage relations with Jerusalem. Paul's own teaching may have contributed to the Corinthians' attitude: Paul often speaks of the separation between the spirit and the flesh (Cf Rom 8:1-13), and insists that in Christ we are dead to the law (Rom 7:1-6) and to sin (Rom 6:1-14). No wonder the Corinthians thought they were saved and so no longer subject to the flesh, with its taboos. Notice that Paul is here concerned with persistent visible transgressions - he is not expecting perfection, but he is expecting sincerity and integrity. (Perhaps this is what really underlies the difficulty the Church has with admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion?)
7 The earliest Easter homily: in the Jewish calendar the festival of unleavened bread followed immediately after Passover. In preparation for this feast all traces of old bread were removed from the house. Only unleavened bread was then eaten during the festival. For Paul, Christ’s death, the true Passover, is followed by the new, pure Christian community - a perpetual feast of unleavened bread. But we are not arrived yet - we must continue to clear out the old leaven so that they may be what they already are - a fresh batch of dough. Paul’s characteristic “Become what you are” is nowhere expressed more clearly. One’s life must be continuously purged of evil ways. An individual's behaviour has implications for others: immoral behaviour must be rooted out before it spreads.
8 Thinking of the coming feast - Passover - perhaps the earliest mention of Easter? A Christian’s life is a continuous celebration with right behaviour of Christ's sacrifice. But an Easter people must behave appropriately - they have gone through the Cross. Otherwise they cannot truly celebrate. For pastoral reasons - not implying immoral behaviour is acceptable - we should show clearly that it is condemned, by the (Jewish) approach of condemning the sinner publicly. A modern approach is to "condemn the sin, but not the sinner" - Paul has only just said he does not judge. There is a fine balance to be struck on every occasion between showing what we believe to be right, and acting as judge by condemning the sinner. Better to keep communication open? Perhaps the Church has too often in the past been ready to condemn sinners publicly - to encourage others - where Christ would have said "Who will cast the first stone? I will not condemn you, go and sin no more". Not condemned, but admonished to cease the sinning. Paul amazingly sees - even - the Corinthian community as “unleavened”, ie purified from evil - so they should become what they are and what God has made possible: perhaps the kernel of Paul’s theology.
9 This letter is lost. While it may have been misunderstood, some may have used its impossible requirement to keep separate from sinners to undermine Paul’s authority. Paul concedes that Christians cannot separate themselves from non-Christians, a misunderstanding which appears to have arisen. But associating with immoral fellow Christians is to be avoided to maintain the purity of the Christian community: we cannot exclude ourselves from the world, we cannot help associating with wrongdoers in our daily lives. Otherwise how can they see the example which we are - or should be - giving them? Paul is very clear that sexual misconduct is not a private matter - it is of concern to the whole community. Everything the Christian does affects the whole community.
10 But in saying they should not associate with immoral people, Paul did not mean pagans, but members of their own community. They need only to excommunicate - it is not for them to take the matter further, once the sinner is “on the outside” in the hands of God - the immoral of this world need not be shunned, although Christians should not mingle with them (Cf Ps 101:7). But we must not withdraw from the world - eg by filling our diaries with Christian meetings. We should make ourselves available for meeting unbelievers in open friendship. Ie strict discipline within, free association outside.
11 The usual translation today is that Paul means what he is now writing, rather than a previous unknown letter, as in v. 9. Here Paul amends what he has said before. We have to live with the tensions of the world, and also continue to have a missionary responsibility to pagans. But the Christian community is required to correct those members of the community who err, so as to develop their faith and reflect it in their conduct. To emphasise the gravity, they are to be excluded from “table fellowship” (Deut 13:5), one of the strongest indicators in all societies of social kinship and bonding. In Vv. 10-11 Paul lists 6 vices, 4 more are added in 6:9-10 - all commonly given in lists by Greek Stoics and Cynics, but - as usual - Paul adapts these lists to this specific situation - suggesting that these particular vices were problems for the Corinthians: sex, possessions, money, drink, tongue - especially those who revile those in leadership positions. But he gives no ratings - they are all to be treated with equal seriousness when they occur repeatedly. So that the Church gives a clear message - by its distinctive behaviour - to the world that these vices should be avoided by all. We should spend our time with unbelievers, as Christ did, and not with Christians!
12 Group identity is important - the social boundaries between those inside and those outside. The community is different from those outside and this difference contributes to its identity. It is not for Paul or the Corinthians to judge the behaviour of pagans - nor us: we should say clearly what we believe to be right behaviour, and act accordingly ourselves, but we should not judge non-Christians for their behaviour.
13 Deut 13:6. Not a supportive argument, nor introduced with “it is written” - this quote is made his own by Paul as a final flourish. It is for God to judge others. Emphasising Paul's Jewish approach, which perhaps appears to us today to lack pastoral concern. But the wrong-doers within the community are to be expelled, for the good of the community. Discipline is an essential ingredient of love. Hushing up - or transferring - ministers who sin - whether sexual or otherwise - does the community no service. Failure to exercise effective discipline is a failure of love towards the offender, his victims, and the church. The Gospel is not a message of ‘grace on the cheap’. The church must not tolerate evil within it. Paul’s recommended punishment of banishment was common at the time (Cf Ezra 7:26).

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians

Chapter 5