1 Corinthians 5:1-5

Corinth was a church with its share of problems, and Paul specifically dealt with them. The book is essentially an itemized list of problems. Following the introduction, chapters 1-4 dealt with sectarianism and everything that went along with it. There is a very distinct and abrupt shift in the beginning of chapter 5, as Paul moves to deal with another situation within the church.

To understand this, we have to understand something about the context. The first-century Greco-Roman World had a very loose code of sexual ethics. The high ideal of chastity, as it exists within Christianity and the Christian tradition, was almost completely unknown. Paul touches on this issue several times throughout his writings because it was something very foreign to most of his readers; even as Christians, it was a lesson to learn.

The culture had a very lax view on these issues (especially in Corinth)--but that doesn't mean they had NO concept of sexual ethics. There were some things even the pagans of the first century recognized as wrong—some things that were just too far and could never be approved or accepted. One of those things was for a man to have an affair with his step-mother. Cicero refers to this as “an incredible and unheard of wickedness.”

And this was a thing that was going on in the church at Corinth. There was a man in the church who was involved in some kind of relationship with his stepmother. There is debate among scholars whether the woman was divorced, widowed, or still married, but in any of those scenarios, the action was still wrong. Again, it could be questioned whether this man was always a sinner who entered the church despite his sin or whether he had backslid into this sin—but it doesn't make much difference to the situation.

So we have this member within the church who was living in sin, in a sin that was recognized as sin even by the pagan world. And this was not a secret: Paul says that it is reported commonly—the word translated 'commonly' can mean 'actually' or 'really', as if Paul is remarking with surprise on the fact that this situation is occurring, but it can also mean 'wholly, altogether..."generally" or "everywhere"' (Robertson) In other words, that this was common knowledge, both in the church and out of it. Barnes comments: “It is so public that it cannot be concealed; and so certain that it cannot be denied."

And that brings us to the point of this passage. Such sin is terrible, but that isn't Paul's main point here. He doesn't directly address the man and rebuke him for his immoral and rather weird behavior. Rather, Paul addresses the church and their attitude towards the man.

That is the situation. We have this man living in open, flagrant sin. And how had the church reacted? What had the church done about it?

Apparently, they had done absolutely nothing. Apparently, this man was still coming to church, still partaking in the sacraments and the life of the church, and perhaps, for all we know, he even had some sort of position within the church.

That brings us to this word: CONNIVANCE. The dictionary defines this word: “willingness to secretly allow or be involved in wrongdoing, especially an immoral or illegal act.” That is what the Corinthian church was doing—they were allowing wrongdoing and not even being secret about it. The sin was committed by a single man; but because it was public knowledge, this became the problem of the entire church. 

In verse 2, Paul makes it clear what they should have done: they should have mourned and had the man removed from the church. This should have been a cause for sorrow, self-reflection, repentance and that would have led to taking action.

In 2 Corinthians, Paul deals with the problem of some kind of sin within the church. Some commentators think he is referring to this same situation, which had not yet been resolved. And Paul describes how they did deal with it: “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.” (2 Corinthians 7:10-11) Do you see the progression? First, they sorrowed over the situation, and then that sorrow led to a zeal and a desire to set things right. Paul says it led to 'revenge'--a better translation would be 'punishment'--it led to taking steps to deal with the problem and punishing someone who had been in the wrong.

Whether the passage in 2 Corinthians refers to the same problem or something else, the same general principle remains—when dealing with sin in the church, there should be mourning (a recognition of and remorse for the problem) and then action to set things right.

That is what the Corinthians ought to have been doing. What were they actually doing? They were being puffed up. Being puffed up was a continual problem for the Corinthians. This was a church full of problems, and yet it was excessively pleased with itself. As we've seen in the last several chapters, the church was splitting into smaller factions, and these factions were built upon pride—pride about following or being connected to specific people.

Luke 22:24 is a good description of the church at Corinth: “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” That was their concern. That was the root of their sectarianism problems. It was also the root of some of their other problems, as we will see later. They were too concerned with pride, with the game of vainglory, to admit that their church might have a scandal that needed to be addressed. Robertson suggests that this man was part of one of the warring factions in the church and that his fellows ignored or justified his sin because he was part of their group.

This is a tangent, but you'll notice that pride or puffed-up-ed-ness was one of the root problems in the Corinthian church. And you'll remember something else we pointed out being the root of the problems in Corinth: “For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1 Corinthians 3:3)

And I point this out because many people see pride as the primary or defining characteristic of the carnal state. Now, I can't think of any scripture that makes that specific connection, but there is a logical reason for it. The carnal state is one where sin is still active within the believer in some sense, and pride is often seen as the fundamental nature of sin because pride is antithetical to God; pride looks to self instead of to God. There are some places in the Bible that make this contrast clear: “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4) “But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (James 4:6)

The verse from James is especially interesting since some believe that James 4 is addressing the problem of the carnal state, and the description of the people to whom James writes also seems to parallel some of the issues within the Corinthian church.

As I said, this is a tangent, but it is important to remember that many of the superficial problems in Corinth were symptoms of a deeper spiritual problem. But that didn't mean that Paul could just ignore them. Sometimes a doctor has to treat both the disease and the symptoms.

So we have this problem. This sinner was living within the Corinthian church and the Corinthians were too busy patting themselves on the back to deal with him. They were, intentionally or not, conniving with his sin—they were, by their inaction, becoming involved in it, were, in practice justifying it.

Paul, on the other hand, even though he wasn't physically involved in the church, was more concerned for the good of the church than even the people there seemed to have been. In verses 3-4, Paul makes it clear that he was very well informed of what was going on—whether this was simply by reports or by some kind of spiritual inspiration. He pictures himself in the spirit joining the assembled church--an invisible juryman in the man's trial. Paul would be present, and so would Jesus if they acted in His name--if they acted as His church fulfilling His will.

This leads us to verse 5, where Paul describes the proper way to deal with this man: “Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” We also read this in 1 Timothy 1:20: “Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

What does it mean to deliver someone to Satan? There are basically two views on this. 

Some believe this refers to some kind of miraculous judgment, inflicting the guilty with sickness or other physical problems. We know that the apostles sometimes possessed such power—Acts 13:11 tells of how Paul dealt with Elymas when he tried to stop the spread of the gospel: “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.” The idea of this being a kind of physical affliction fits with the statement about the “destruction of the flesh.”

However, others take this phrase simply to mean that the man was to be kicked out of the church. Imagine a fortress set in the middle of enemy territory; as long as it is secure, anyone inside it will be safe from the enemy. But if someone was cast out of the fortress, he would, essentially, be delivered to the enemy. The church is the one fortress against the kingdom of Satan, and, in a sense, to be outside it is to be in Satan's power. This interpretation fits with what we know of church discipline from other places: “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:17)

Whichever interpretation you take, the bottom line in either case is the same. The situation had to be dealt with. The man could not go on as he was without facing some kind of judgment from the church. There had to be discipline, whether that discipline was natural or supernatural. Sin in the church cannot be ignored.

And yet, despite this talk about punishment, the point was not simply to hurt or humiliate the sinner. Paul says that the point of this punishment was “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The hope was always that the man would, as a result of the discipline, repent and return to God. Paul's desire was not to hurt but to heal.

Again, in 2 Corinthians we have reference to someone having been punished by the church and man people believe this is referring to this case. And there Paul says 2 Corinthians 2:6-8: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.”

Paul's desire was always for reconciliation. But there could be no reconciliation until everyone admitted that there was a problem. Forgiveness is not the same as apathy. For the church to connive with sin, to allow a sinner to remain active in the church, is bad for the church, but it is just as bad for the sinner. Everyone must face the situation before there can be healing.