5:1 "Immorality"is a general translation of the Greek word porneia, which means fornication, specifically sexual relations with a forbidden mate. The precise offense in this case was sexual union with the woman who had married the man's father (cf. Matt. 5:27-28, 32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:21). Had she been his physical mother other terms would have been more appropriate to use. Evidently the woman was his step-mother, and she may have been close to his own age.
"The woman was clearly not the mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of porneiarather than moicheiadoes not prove this) she was not, as the time, the wife of the offender's father. She may have been divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband may have been dead."107
The verb translated "to have,"when used in sexual or marital contexts, is a euphemism for a continuing relationship in contrast to a "one night stand"(cf. 7:2). This man and this woman were "living together."Since the man is the object of Paul's censure, it seems that the woman was not in the church.
"The word porneia(sexual immorality') in the Greek world simply meant prostitution,' in the sense of going to the prostitutes and paying for sexual pleasure. The Greeks were ambivalent on that matter, depending on whether one went openly to the brothels or was more discreet and went with a paramour. But the word had been picked up in Hellenistic Judaism, always pejoratively, to cover all extramarital sexual sins and aberrations, including homosexuality. It could also refer to any of these sins specifically, as it does here. In the NT the word is thus used to refer to that particular blight on Greco-Roman culture, which was almost universally countenanced, except among the Stoics. That is why porneiaappears so often as the first item in the NT vice lists, not because Christians were sexually hung up,' nor because they considered this the primary sin, the scarlet letter,' as it were. It is the result of its prevalence in the culture, and the difficulty the early church experienced with its Gentile converts breaking with their former ways, which they did not consider immoral."108
The leaders of Israel and the early churches regarded fornication of all kinds as sin to avoid (Lev. 18:8; Deut. 22:30; 27:20; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25).109As depraved as Greek culture was, even the pagans looked down on incest.
5:2 The Corinthians' attitude about this situation was even worse than the sin itself. Rather than mourning over it and disciplining the offender they took pride in it. They may have viewed it as within the bounds of Christian liberty thinking that their position in Christ made sexual morality unimportant. Another possibility is that their worldly "wisdom"encouraged them to cast off sexual restraints.
". . . Paul is not here dealing with church discipline' as such; rather, out of his Jewish heritage he is expressing what should be the normalconsequences of being the people of God, who are called to be his holy people (1:2). It is this lack of a sense of sin, and therefore of any ethical consequences to their life in the Spirit, that marks the Corinthian brand of spirituality as radically different from that which flows out of the gospel of Christ crucified. And it is precisely this failure to recognize the depth of their corporate sinfulness due to their arrogance that causes Paul to take such strong action as is described in the next sentence (vv. 3-5)."110
5:3 Paul had spoken earlier about not judging others (4:5). That kind of judging had to do with one's degree of faithfulness to the Lord. Here the issue was blatant immorality. This needed dealing with, and Paul had already determined what the Corinthian Christians should do in this case even though he was not present. The case was so clear that he did not need to be present to know the man was guilty of a serious offense that required strong treatment.
5:4 The apostle wanted the believers to view his ruling as the will of the Lord. He assured them that God would back it up with His power as they enforced the discipline. The phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus"probably modifies "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh"(v. 5).111In passing the following judgment Paul was acting in Jesus' name, with His authority.
5:5 Paul had determined to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. Probably Paul meant that he had delivered the man to Satan, with God's permission of course, for his premature death.112This was the result of Peter's dealings with Ananias and Sapphira, though the text does not say he delivered them to Satan for the destruction of their flesh. God was bringing premature death on other Corinthians for their improper conduct during the Lord's Supper (11:30; cf. 1 John 5:16). We have no record that this man died prematurely, though he may have. Premature death might be his judgment (the "worst case scenario") if he did not repent.
Paul passed similar judgment on Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20). In that case he said he just delivered them to Satan. He wrote nothing about the destruction of the flesh. Deliverance to Satan must mean deliverance to the authority and control of Satan in a way that is different from the way all believers are under Satan's control. Everyone is subject to temptation and demonic influence under the sovereign authority of God (cf. Job 1-2).
A variation of this view is that the delivery to Satan would eventuate in a wasting physical illness but not death.113However the term "the destruction of the flesh"seems to imply death rather than simply disease.
A third interpretation understands the term "flesh"metaphorically as referring to the destruction of the man's sinful nature.114The destruction of the flesh in this case refers to the mortification of the lusts of the flesh. However it seems unusual that Paul would deliver the man to Satan for this purpose. Satan would not normally put the lusts of the flesh to death but stir them up in the man. It is hard to see how handing a person over to Satan would purify him.
Still another view takes the flesh and spirit as referring to the sinful and godly character of the church rather than the individual.115Paul may have been identifying the sinful element within the Corinthian church that needed destroying. This would result in the preservation of the spirit of the church. The main problem with this view is that Paul seems to be referring to an individual rather than to the church as a whole. Certainly the man's actions would affect the church, so it is probably proper to see some involvement of the church here even though the judgment seems to be primarily against the man.
Another interpretation is that Paul was speaking of the man's excommunication from the church.116This does not seem to be in harmony with the phrase "for the destruction of the flesh."
Paul may have meant both excommunication and premature death since his analogy concerning the Passover (vv. 6-8) stresses separating what is sinful from what it pollutes.
Is this a form of church discipline that we can and should practice today? There are no other Scripture passages in which the Lord instructed church leaders to turn sinners over to Satan. Consequently I believe this was one way in which the apostles in particular exercised their authority in the early church for the establishment of the church (cf. Acts 5). People may commit sins that lead to their premature deaths today. However, there is no indication in Scripture that what Paul did here is normative for church leaders in cases of church discipline. There are, of course, other biblical examples of excommunication as church discipline.
The last part of the verse gives the purpose of Paul's discipline. "Spirit"contrasts with "flesh.""Flesh"evidently refers to the body so "spirit"probably refers to the immaterial part of the man. The "day of the Lord Jesus"refers to the return of Christ at the Rapture and the judgment of believers connected with it (cf. 1:8). From what did his punishment save the incestuous man? It did not save him eternally since faith in Christ does that, nor did it save him from physical death since that appears to have been his punishment. Probably it saved him from a worse verdict when Christ would evaluate his stewardship of his life at the judgment seat. Evidently Paul regarded it better for this sinning Christian, as well as best for the church, that he die prematurely, assuming that he would not repent, than that he go on living. Perhaps Paul had reason to believe he would not turn from his sin but only worsen.
Some have interpreted Paul's allusion to "such a one"in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7 as referring to this incestuous man. The text does not warrant that definite a connection. "Such a one"is simply a way of referring to someone, anyone, without using his or her name.117
