1 Corinthians chapter 5

vs 1

When Paul is making this sort of accusation, you're thinking that he chose whip, right? But really, the presentation of a guy who has his father's wife (ewww!) is only the symptoms of a deeper theological problem with the Corinthians.

vs 2

They are proud! And I don't mean like "sin of pride" problem, I mean that they think that this sort of activity is in some way positive. Most likely, it is because the Corinthians are very much caught up in their freedom from legalistic living, and so they see this relationship as a proof of their freedom in Christ.

Paul doesn't see it that way. Instead, he sees that the church should have been filled with grief that such a thing was happening in their midst, and that they should have taken the drastic step of putting the person out of the church.

So, should we follow the same rule of booting people from fellowship if they do some heinous act? Not an easy one, is it? See, although we try to live as biblical Christians, we don't live in biblical times. We live way, way, way, way, way on the other side of Constantine and the flood of nominalism into the church. So the question then becomes, do we seek to reverse the cultural trend of 1600 years and try to separate the true believers from the nominal ones, or do we remain inclusive in the hope that we might rub off on them somehow? I'll leave you to answer that. For the time being.

vs 3

Is Paul literally there with them as some sort of floating spirit? I am fairly confident in saying no. I don't think I'm being eisegetical in saying that it's an idiomatic phrase. Paul doesn't need to talk to someone to know that sleeping with your father's wife is just plain wrong. I mean, even pagans don't do that sort of dirty.

vs 4

He is now starting to give a command on this subject. This verse gives the setting: when you're together, when Paul is there in spirit (so basically always), and when the power of the Lord Jesus is present. Do we take this in the same way as Paul being there in spirit (that is, that Jesus' power is always with us?) or do we assume that there is some cue that means you can tell when Jesus' power is with you and when it's not. I will go for the former, especially since it is right next to that bit about Paul being there in spirit.

vs 5

Satan almost provides a service for the church here - you give him people that are just so low, but who are unwilling to agree that their actions are not at all Christian, and the result is not what you expect. You expect Satan to take that person and turn them into a right abomination. But instead, this act of handover (when done correctly one assumes) results in the destruction of their sinful nature, and will actually allow this person to get over this problem and be saved.

Obviously Satan isn't the church's pal, and he's not doing this out of love. But God is able to use all things, even Satan, for good, and this is a great example of that. What is exactly meant by "handing the guy over to Satan" then? Paul, as always, doesn't go into it. He assumes the Corinthians know what he's talking about. The best we can guess is that he is referring to what he said earlier - kick his ass outta church.

Of course, if you've read ahead in 2 Corinthians, you'll know that Paul tells them to welcome him back once he's repentant.

vs 6

But now Paul gets off this specific problem of guy and father's wife, and gets back to the root problem - the boastfulness of the church in its incorrect freedoms.

The "little yeast" might be the actions of this almost-incestual guy. It might also be a reflection on the small beginnings that start the ball rolling in such a situation.

vs 7

Paul is getting a little Hebraic here - the bread without yeast being used at passover of course (and this sort of indicates that the early Christian churches, even greek ones like this, were still celebrating Jewish feasts like passover). So Paul is saying that since Jesus has been sacrificed as a passover lamb (once for all of course), then the church should take the part of being the holy bread without yeast.

vs 8

Assuming they are keeping the festival already, this is not a literal command to keep the festival, but instead a command to keep the spirit of the festival in the life of the church - the sanctity of their position as passover bread without yeast (malice and wickedness). Church should be bread of sincerity and truth. Mmm, good bread.

vs 9

Now here we get to a letter previously written by Paul. He is now clarifying what he meant for them. So he told them not to hang out with sexually immoral people.

vs 10

But the Corinthians obviously thought that Paul meant "don't hang out with those people outside the church, those dirty beggars. But hey, that guy who's sleeping with his father's wife, he's OK!"

Paul says that's stupid, and they're stupid. Instead, he meant the opposite - don't hang out with those sicko "so-called Christians" who sleep with various married relatives, but keep up with those non-Christians who really don't have any reason to act properly because they don't care what God thinks. If we were meant to leave this world, God would beam us up - it's certainly not beyond him - but instead he leaves us here for a reason.

vs 11

But that reason isn't to hang out with a person who calls themself a Christian, but acts like a complete non-Christian.

Here it is in black and white, but do we do it? Should we do it? If someone calls themself a Christian but they're doing all sorts of bad things, should we ditch them and not even have lunch? I think in our culture we tend to say someone either is a Christian (and they don't act that way) or they're not really a Christian (so it's ok to hang out with them too). That's because our super-Calvinist theology doesn't really accept the idea that people can be fallen-Christians. Perhaps it's just what I was talking about before, the acceptance of nominalism into the church, that has changed the way we think. I think it's probably a bit of both. So what's the solution? Beats me I'm afraid. Not a simple one.

vs 12

Christians aren't meant to judge non-Christians. So if someone doesn't even claim to be or pretend to be a Christian, no reason to judge them. Love them, sure. Witness to them, absolutely. But judge them, no.

vs 13

That's God's job. However, it seems we are to judge, and even take action against, those who claim to be Christian but who are not.

This is a really interesting point. Off topic a little, recently someone in our church was preaching on the letter to Laodecia in Revelation, where Jesus says he wishes the church was either hot or cold. Now I've always understood that as being useful one way or useful the other, and I know that some people interpret it as hot (on fire for God) or cold (against God), but I never really took truck with that because I think it's out of context there.

But reading this, I wonder. God doesn't want us to judge non-Christians. He'll do that himself. But people who claim to be Christians but don't walk the walk, them we can judge (or will judge in the future, unclear there), and even expel from fellowship! Is that God taking action on the lukewarm, prefering to hand them over to Satan to make the decision about whether to be hot or cold? Not sure. But it could be defended I think.