Posted by 1 Corinthians on Thursday, 7 January 2016
III. Disorders in the Church (chaps. 5-6).
In the spirit of love but with the need for their discipline in mind, Paul turned in his letter to deal with certain disorders in the church, including their failures to discipline an immoral brother (chap. 5), to resolve personal disputes in a godly manner (6:1-11), and to maintain sexual purity (6:12-20).
A. Failure to discipline a sinner (chap. 5).
Pride is the opposite of love because it produces self-concern, while love responds to the needs of others. Corinthian pride had produced not only disunity but also indifference and an unwillingness to exercise discipline within the church.
5:1. The issue concerned a Corinthian Christian who was carrying on an incestuous affair with his stepmother, a relationship prohibited both in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:8; Deut. 22:22) and in Roman law (Cicero Cluentes 6. 15 and Gaius Institutis 1. 63). The fact that Paul said nothing about disciplining the woman suggests that she was not a Christian.
5:2. The shameful situation did not seem to faze the Corinthians in the least. If anything, the affair may have even bloated their arrogant spirits. The godly response would have been grief for this brother (cf. 12:26; Gal. 6:1-2), leading to discipline which would exclude him from intimacy with the congregation until he would repent (cf. Matt. 18:15-17).
5:3-5. In view of the Corinthian indifference to the matter, Paul was compelled to act. By the authority vested in him as an apostle, he passed judgment on the offender which he asked the church to enact at their next meeting. Here was an example of the power he had earlier referred to (4:20-21). What the exercise of this power accomplished is not certain. The translation of the Greek word sarkos by the sinful nature suggests the idea that the man’s fleshly appetites were to be annulled. However, several factors suggest a different discipline, namely corporeal affliction—with sarkos understood as “body” (as in the niv margin). (The result, of course, is the same—the man’s purification.) First, the latter is the usual meaning of the term when it is juxtaposed with spirit, which signifies the whole man in his inner and external being. Second, the word translated destroyed (olethron) is a strong term, the noun form of which (olethreutou) occurs elsewhere in this letter (10:10) where it is translated “the destroying angel” who killed men. Third, Paul also spoke in this letter about a discipline which leads to death (11:30) with the same end in view—the ultimate preservation of the person (11:32; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20; 1 John 5:16).
So it seems probable that Paul intended this man should be excluded from the fellowship of the congregation, thus physically expressing his exclusion from God’s protection which he formerly enjoyed (cf. Job 1:12) and thrusting him out into the arena of the world (1 John 5:19) where Satan would bring about his death. It thus became a painful example of the price of self-centered indifference and a powerful reminder of the demand for holiness in God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:17; 6:19).
5:6. There was, of course, no excuse for the Corinthians’ pathetic behavior. Paul reminded them of a truth they already knew but were failing to practice—a little yeast soon permeates the whole batch of dough. A small sickness can eventually kill a body. The need for church discipline is based on the same principle.
5:7-8. As the literal yeast was removed from the house during the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:15-20; 13:1-10), so that which it illustrated, sin, was to be removed from the house of God, the local church, during its “Festival of Unleavened Bread,” a continual observance for a Christian who has found in Christ’s death on the cross the once-for-all sacrifice of the Passover Lamb (cf. John 1:29; Heb. 10:10, 14). This was nowhere more true than in the celebration which commemorated that sacrificial act, the Lord’s Supper, the quintessential act of fellowship for Christians. Probably Paul meant to exclude the unrepentant Christian from this meal in particular.
5:9-10. In an earlier letter Paul had given direction on this subject but the Corinthians had applied it only to those outside the church. Paul showed the absurdity of such a view by noting that such compliance would necessitate leaving this world. Paul was certainly no advocate of monasticism (or its separatistic kind in Protestantism).
5:11. What he called for was disciplinary action for anyone associated with the church, whether a brother or one in name only, who took part in the church while continuing a life of sin. The discipline demanded for such a one was exclusion from fellowship with other members. Certainly the prohibition extended to an exclusion from eating the communal meal, the Lord’s Supper. Other social contact might also have been excluded. It was unlikely, however, that the sanctioned individual was barred from all congregational meetings, for the church’s ministry might lead to his conviction and repentance (14:24-25).
5:12-13. It was not Paul’s business to judge those outside the church (cf., e.g., his silence about the woman in 5:1); still less was it the business of the Corinthians. But discipline within the church was their responsibility.
Those in the world God will judge (cf. Acts 17:31). But those within the Christian community who continue in sin with an unrepentant spirit, the church should discipline by expulsion.
Excerpt from:
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).
The Bible knowledge commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
