← 1 Corinthians
Lesson 5 of 17 · about 20 min

Calling Out the Elephant

How should a community handle someone who is causing obvious, unrepentant harm?

📖 1 Corinthians 5:1-13
1Read
Read First

1 Corinthians 5:1-13

Read the whole passage before anything else. Everything below exists to help you understand what you just read.

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one has his father’s wife.

2You are arrogant, and didn’t mourn instead, that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you.

3For I most certainly, as being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him who has done this thing.

4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together with my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5you are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole lump?

7Purge out the old yeast, that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed in our place.

8Therefore let’s keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with sexual sinners;

10yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, or with the covetous and extortionists, or with idolaters, for then you would have to leave the world.

11But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortionist. Don’t even eat with such a person.

12For what do I have to do with also judging those who are outside? Don’t you judge those who are within?

13But those who are outside, God judges. “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.”

World English Bible (public domain)Read in another translation
2Understand

What just happened?

Imagine a city like Corinth in the middle of the first century. It was a bustling port city in ancient Greece, strategically located on an isthmus connecting the Peloponnese to mainland Greece. Sailors, merchants, and travelers from across the Roman Empire passed through its markets and temples. It was a place of diverse cultures, religions, and lifestyles, often known for its wealth and, frankly, its excesses. The followers of Jesus in Corinth were a relatively new community, drawn from this vibrant but often chaotic environment. They were a mix of people—some formerly pagan, some Jewish, some wealthy, some poor—all trying to figure out what it meant to live differently in a world that didn’t understand their new faith.

Into this complex setting, the Apostle Paul had planted a church during his second missionary journey around AD 50-52. He spent about eighteen months there, teaching and establishing the community. After he left, problems began to surface. Paul, now likely in Ephesus, started hearing reports, probably from visitors like Chloe's household (1 Corinthians 1:11) or Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Corinthians 16:17), about issues within the Corinthian church. These weren't small squabbles; they were deep, fundamental challenges to the very nature of their shared life, ranging from internal divisions and legal disputes to questions about spiritual gifts and sexual morality. This letter, 1 Corinthians, is Paul's attempt to address these specific, real-world problems head-on.

In this particular section, Paul is responding to a truly shocking piece of news: there's a man in their community having a sexual relationship with his stepmother. This wasn't just a minor transgression; it was a scandal so egregious that even the non-believing Roman world found it unacceptable. The surprise isn't just that it happened, but that the Corinthian church, instead of being heartbroken or taking action, seemed to be, as Paul says, 'arrogant' about it, perhaps even boasting about their 'tolerance' or 'freedom.' This situation was a festering wound, threatening to infect the entire body, and Paul believed it demanded immediate and decisive action, not quiet acceptance.

1 Corinthians 5:1-2

The Unspeakable Scandal

Paul cuts straight to the chase: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one has his father’s wife." The Greek term here, _porneia_, is a broad word for sexual sin, but the specific situation—a man with his stepmother—was a highly taboo act, even in the generally permissive Greco-Roman culture. Roman law considered such a union incestuous and illegal, and Jewish law certainly condemned it (Leviticus 18:8). This wasn't some hidden rumor; it was 'actually reported,' meaning it was a known, public offense. Paul doesn't soften the blow. He's laying out the plain fact of the situation.

Then Paul delivers a gut punch to the church's attitude: "You are arrogant, and didn’t mourn instead, that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you." This is the truly perplexing part for Paul. Instead of genuine sorrow, instead of dealing with the harm, the Corinthians are 'arrogant.' The Greek word, _physioō_, implies being puffed up, conceited. It suggests a prideful attitude, perhaps a misinterpretation of Christian 'freedom' that led them to tolerate sin rather than confront it. Paul sees this as a profound failure of leadership and spiritual maturity. Their inaction isn't neutrality; it's a form of complicity that allows the harm to persist and grow.

1 Corinthians 5:3-5

Paul's Radical Solution

Paul, though physically absent, declares, "For I most certainly, as being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him who has done this thing." He's not waiting for them to act. He's exercising his apostolic authority. His 'judgment' here isn't a final damnation but a pronouncement of the necessary action. He then instructs them on how to proceed: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together with my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, you are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

This phrase, "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," sounds shocking to modern ears. It doesn't mean literally handing someone over to the devil for eternal torment. Instead, it refers to excommunication, a removal from the protection and fellowship of the believing community, which was understood as the realm of God's blessing and presence. Outside the community was considered 'Satan's territory.' The 'destruction of the flesh' doesn't necessarily mean physical death, but rather the severe, painful consequences—social, emotional, perhaps even physical illness—that might come from being outside the grace and support of the church, exposed to the harsh realities of a fallen world. The purpose, however, is not punishment for its own sake, but ultimately redemptive: "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The hope is that the suffering and isolation would lead to repentance and ultimate spiritual salvation.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

The Leaven Analogy

Paul then uses a powerful, everyday analogy familiar to his audience: "Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole lump?" In ancient times, a small piece of fermented dough (leaven or yeast) was often kept from one batch to the next to start the fermentation for new bread. This metaphor was widely understood, especially in Jewish tradition, where leaven often symbolized corruption or sin, particularly in the context of Passover. The Passover celebration required removing all leaven from the house as a symbol of purity and a remembrance of the hasty departure from Egypt, leaving no time for dough to rise.

Paul continues, "Purge out the old yeast, that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed in our place. Therefore let’s keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." He's telling them that this one unaddressed sin, this one 'leaven,' will eventually corrupt the entire community. Just as they celebrate Passover and believe Christ's sacrifice has made them 'unleavened' (pure and new), their ongoing behavior must reflect that. The 'yeast of malice and wickedness' is what they need to get rid of, replacing it with 'sincerity and truth.' This isn't just about an individual; it's about the health and integrity of the entire community.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Drawing the Line

Paul clarifies a previous instruction: "I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with sexual sinners; yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, or with the covetous and extortionists, or with idolaters, for then you would have to leave the world." This is a crucial distinction. His earlier letter (which we don't have) was apparently misunderstood. He wasn't telling them to become hermits, isolating themselves from all non-believers who engage in such behaviors. That would be impossible; to live in the world means encountering people with all sorts of moral frameworks. This highlights Paul's realism: he understands that true separation isn't about physical distance from the world, but moral distinctiveness within it.

He then draws the clear line: "But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortionist. Don’t even eat with such a person." The difference is critical: it's not about those 'outside' the community, but 'anyone who is called a brother'—someone who claims to be part of the Christian family. When someone *within* the community persists in obvious, unrepentant harmful behavior, the community must draw a clear boundary. To 'not even eat with such a person' was a powerful social statement in a culture where shared meals signified fellowship and acceptance. It was a way of saying, "We cannot endorse or normalize this behavior within our family."

Paul concludes by explaining the rationale: "For what do I have to do with also judging those who are outside? Don’t you judge those who are within? But those who are outside, God judges. 'Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.'" He affirms that God is the ultimate judge of the world. The church's responsibility, however, is to maintain its own integrity, to 'judge those who are within'—not in a self-righteous, condemning way, but in a way that protects the community and potentially leads the offender to repentance. The final command, likely a quote from Deuteronomy 17:7 or 22:24, emphasizes the necessity of internal purity and the removal of persistent evil to safeguard the health of the community.

3Discover

What are we supposed to see?

This passage shows Paul as a leader deeply committed to the purity and health of the community, even when it demands incredibly difficult actions. He's not shying away from confrontation or trying to be 'nice' at the expense of truth. His action here—his insistence on confronting a serious, unrepentant sin—demonstrates a conviction that a community claiming to follow Jesus cannot simply ignore obvious, destructive behavior within its ranks. He's showing that the identity of the church as a 'new lump' is paramount and that maintaining that identity requires active, sometimes painful, discernment and discipline.

Paul's instructions also reveal a God who values integrity and truth within his people, not just personal piety but communal holiness. The ultimate goal, as he states, is not merely punishment but the hope that the person's "spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This shows a God who, even in the midst of requiring severe measures, is still ultimately merciful and redemptive. The 'destruction of the flesh' is a means to an end, a stark intervention designed to awaken someone to the seriousness of their actions and draw them back, rather than a final judgment of eternal condemnation.

  • 1
    WHAT HE VALUES

    God values the purity and spiritual health of his community above individual comfort or social harmony that comes at the cost of truth and integrity.

  • 2
    WHAT HE CONFRONTS

    God confronts unrepentant, destructive sin within the community, especially when it is tolerated or even celebrated, because it threatens to corrupt the entire body.

  • 3
    IDENTITY

    The identity of believers is to be 'unleavened'—set apart, pure, reflecting the sacrifice of Christ, and actively purging out the 'yeast of malice and wickedness' from their communal life.

Where this sits in the whole Bible

1 Corinthians 5:5 → Matthew 18:15-17

Jesus outlines a process for addressing sin within the community that involves private confrontation, then involving witnesses, and finally, if repentance doesn't occur, treating the person as a 'Gentile and a tax collector,' which implies a form of social and spiritual separation similar to Paul's instruction here.

1 Corinthians 5:6 → Galatians 5:9

Paul uses the 'little leaven leavens the whole lump' analogy in Galatians to warn against false teaching and its corrupting influence, showing that the principle applies not just to moral behavior but also to doctrine, highlighting its pervasive and dangerous nature.

1 Corinthians 5:13 → Deuteronomy 17:7

Paul directly quotes or alludes to the Old Testament command to 'purge the evil from among you,' grounding his instruction in God's long-standing desire for his people to maintain internal holiness and remove destructive elements.

The one thing to remember

The truly shocking aspect of this passage isn't just the sin itself, but the Corinthian church's 'arrogance'—their prideful complacency in allowing obvious, destructive harm to continue unchecked within their community.

4Deep reflection

Don't rush past this

The hardest thing in this passage is Paul's explicit command to 'deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.' There's no softening that language. It's a stark, almost violent image of excommunication, stripping someone of the protection and fellowship of the community, essentially kicking them out into the 'world' with the hope that painful consequences will lead them to repentance. It confronts our modern aversion to 'canceling' or isolating individuals, especially in a context where redemption is the stated goal.

Equally uncomfortable is the directive to 'not even eat with such a person' who claims to be a believer but lives in unrepentant sin. This isn't just about avoiding a casual lunch; it's about severing the bonds of intimate fellowship and communal acceptance, a powerful social and spiritual shunning. It forces us to grapple with the idea that love for a community, and indeed love for the individual caught in sin, sometimes requires drawing incredibly hard lines and enacting painful boundaries, rather than passively accepting all behavior in the name of 'tolerance.'

Turn it inward

Three questions from this passage. Answer them or just sit with them — nothing here is required to finish the lesson.

The mirror
The cost
The decision
Pray

God, this passage is hard. It challenges my desire for comfort and my tendency to avoid difficult truths. Give me the courage to see harm clearly, within myself and in my community. Help me to mourn when I should mourn, and to act with integrity when action is required. Grant me wisdom to know when to draw lines, and compassion to remember that even the hardest boundaries are meant to lead to healing and restoration, not just condemnation. Amen.

Create a free account to save this to your Journal. Reading never requires an account.
5Live it
One step this week

This week, identify an area where you might be tempted to be 'arrogant' or complacent about something destructive—either in your own life or in a community you belong to—instead of 'mourning' and taking honest action. Instead of ignoring it or minimizing its impact, take one small, concrete step to address it, whether that’s a candid conversation, a personal boundary, or simply acknowledging the reality of the harm.

Go deeper — optional

History, language, objections and sources. None of it is needed to understand the passage.

Hard questions
Doesn't excommunicating someone just push them further away from God and the possibility of repentance, especially if they're delivered 'to Satan'?
Interpretation

This is a common and understandable concern. The text presents this act not as a final judgment of damnation, but as a severe, redemptive intervention. The phrase 'deliver to Satan for the destruction of the flesh' is debated among interpreters. Some suggest it refers to the removal of God's protection, allowing natural consequences or even physical illness to serve as a wake-up call. Others see it as a symbolic excommunication, placing the person outside the sphere of the church's spiritual influence and into the world's domain, which was seen as under Satan's sway. The crucial part is the stated *purpose*: 'that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.' This implies that the action is intended to shock the person into realizing the gravity of their sin, leading to a painful but ultimately saving repentance. The historical evidence suggests the early church saw this as a last resort, not an act of permanent rejection, but a desperate attempt to save someone who had become spiritually complacent or harmful.

How can Paul tell the Corinthians to 'judge those who are within' when Jesus told us 'Judge not, lest you be judged' (Matthew 7:1)? Isn't this hypocritical?
Most scholars agree

This appears contradictory at first glance, but it's important to understand the different kinds of 'judging.' Jesus's warning in Matthew 7:1-5 is primarily against hypocritical, self-righteous, and condemnatory judgment of others' motives or minor faults while ignoring one's own greater sins. It's about a critical, superior attitude. Paul, however, is talking about the church's responsibility to maintain its moral integrity and discern behavior within its own ranks. He's distinguishing between judging 'those who are outside' (which God will do) and judging 'those who are within' (which the community must do for its own health and witness). This isn't about deciding someone's eternal fate, but about holding members accountable to the shared standards of the community they've voluntarily joined. It's a judgment of behavior, not character, done out of concern for the individual and the community, not out of self-righteousness. This distinction is widely held among Christian thinkers when interpreting these two passages.

Paul lists a bunch of sins (sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, slandering, drunkenness, extortion). Are Christians supposed to excommunicate everyone who struggles with one of these?
Historic Christian belief

No, the context here is crucial. Paul explicitly states 'anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortionist.' The key is 'who is called a brother' AND who is *unrepentant* and living in *obvious, habitual* sin that causes harm to the community or contradicts their shared identity. The issue isn't struggling with sin—all believers do—but rather embracing, celebrating, or stubbornly persisting in a lifestyle contrary to Christ's teachings while claiming to be part of the community. This passage is about confronting overt, unaddressed harm and clear rebellion against the known teachings, not about immediate expulsion for every mistake or private struggle. The process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 implies a path of conversation and reconciliation before such a drastic step.

The Roman Legal Context of Incest

While Paul refers to the man having his 'father’s wife' as a type of sexual immorality 'not even named among the Gentiles,' this statement needs a bit of nuance. Roman law (specifically the _Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis_ introduced by Augustus in 18 BC, and other Roman legal traditions) prohibited certain forms of incest. Marrying a stepmother was generally considered illegal and incestuous in Roman society, especially if the father was still alive or if the stepson had been adopted by the father. The specific legal term for this type of relationship was _incestum_. Paul's statement therefore might be hyperbole to emphasize the extreme nature of the sin, or it could be that the Corinthians were trying to justify it based on some local custom or a distorted understanding of 'freedom.'

However, some scholars, like Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, argue that Paul’s phrase 'not even named among the Gentiles' (in Greek, _oudē en tois ethnesin onomazetai_) could imply that even in the supposedly morally lax pagan world, this was beyond the pale. The Roman orator Cicero, for example, inveighed against similar transgressions. Thus, the Corinthians were not just breaking Jewish law but also breaching accepted moral standards of the broader Roman world, making their complacency even more egregious in Paul’s eyes.