Church discipline—the orderly exclusion of a church member from the Christian community—is rarely practiced in modern churches today, if at all. Yet the New Testament contains clear instructions on how to deal with individuals who deviate theologically or morally from collective Christian identity. The most extensive of these passages is 1 Corinthians 5.
Since Paul's letters usually address a specific situation, the teaching and its application to our present day must be undertaken carefully and with an eye to the context. In addition, Paul does not address his instructions to the individual concerned, but consistently to the church as a whole. This collective mindset is largely foreign to our Western culture, yet it shapes the entire argument of the chapter.
The Situation
First, let us look at the specific situation into which Paul writes this passage.
Paul refers here to a report that had reached his ears regarding a case of sexual immorality. "The word porneia (sexual immorality) is a broad term denoting sexual sin, and the context specifies the nature of the sexual sin in question."
It is generally assumed that this does not refer to a son's relationship with his biological mother, but rather that a son maintained an ongoing relationship with his father's second wife. This is indicated by the fact that "Paul does not refer to the woman as the man's 'mother,' and the phrase he uses, γυναῖκι τοῦ πατρός, occurs in Lev 18:8 (LXX) with the meaning 'stepmother.'" Whether the father was still alive and separated from this woman, or whether she was already a widow, can only be conjectured.
Such a union was not only condemned by Jewish law (e.g., Leviticus 20:11), but was also frowned upon in Roman society—though not unheard of. Thus Cicero in the first century BC expressed "extreme disgust when 'the mother-in-law marries the son-in-law. … Oh, consider the sin of this woman, incredible, unheard of. … Consider that she did not draw back!'"Since Roman fathers often married significantly younger women upon remarriage, the age difference between the individual concerned and his stepmother may have been smaller than one might initially assume.
Paul is therefore writing into the situation of a severe breach of norms within the Christian community—a breach that fundamentally contradicted their identity as those redeemed by Christ.
Reasons for Church Discipline
But for what reasons should such a breach of norms lead to exclusion from the church in the first place?
The Church as a Collective
The fact that Paul addresses the collective throughout this chapter can be demonstrated from the text itself. Rosner notes: "A striking feature of the instructions in 1 Corinthians 5 is that they are addressed not to the sinner himself, but exclusively to the believers in Corinth as a group. Paul consistently addresses the church as a single body." Additional features in the text that Rosner highlights to underline this point are:
- The second-person plural personal pronoun occurs nine times in 13 verses.
- The exclusion is to take place in the assembled church (5:4).
- The exhortation is addressed to all, not to an individual (5:2, 6).
- The imagery of leaven is applied to the collective: the Corinthians are to be a new batch of dough together (5:7).
- The sacrifice of the Passover lamb also applies to the collective (5:7).
Because Paul addresses the church as a whole, he also holds them accountable as a whole. This becomes clear in verse 2. Thiselton notes regarding this that ἐπενθήσατε "probably carries the nuance of a past (ingressive) act of entering into a state of mourning. For although mere 'being sad' might at first seem more appropriate to express emotional distress, a formal state of mourning would objectively and publicly shape the life and worship of the church in a way that would make it intolerable for the offender to remain, and would then, in all probability, have prompted him to leave voluntarily (or change his lifestyle)."
Helpful here is an examination of the word πενθέω in the Septuagint (LXX), where it occurs six times in the context of sin (Neh 1:4; 8:9; Ezra 10:6; Dan 10:2; 1 Esdras 8:72; 9:2). Five out of six times it concerns repentance or mourning over the sins of others, and only once mourning over personal sin—and even then within a larger collective context (Neh 8:9). Accordingly, Ezra's mourning over the unfaithfulness of the exiles can serve as an example of what Paul expected of the Corinthians: Ezra mourned over an unfaithfulness that he himself had not committed. It was precisely this attitude that Paul expected from the Corinthians, who, in the face of sin in their midst, were not "grieving" (mourning), but were arrogant.
From this it becomes understandable why Paul considered exclusion to be indispensable. Rosner concludes: "Evidently Paul regarded the expulsion of the sinner as essential to protect the church's blessed existence before God."
What Rosner sees as the purpose of the measure, Fitzmyer formulates as an obligation of the church: "The Christian community is obligated to maintain its holiness by removing the wrongdoer from its midst, which is 'the main point of the passage.'"
The Standing of the Church
In doing so, Paul draws upon a very specific conception of the collective identity of the church to justify the practice of exclusion.
Building on a generally shared principle ("Do you not know"), Paul uses the image of leaven and its effect to exhort the church to preserve its holiness.
At the time the letter was written, ζύμη (zymē, leaven) was understood to be a piece of old, fermented dough that was carried over from week to week into the new dough as a leavening agent. However, because dirt and pathogens could easily accumulate over time, this practice carried significant hygienic risks. To counteract this, Jews completely destroyed all old leaven before the annual Passover festival in order to make a clean start with unleavened dough. There was also a biblical command for this (Exodus 12:14–20; 13:6–7). This cleansing was also understood—not least following Zephaniah 1:12—as an image of moral cleansing.
Paul's focus here is thus on leaven as a "symbol of dynamic vitality and as a source of irresistible effects [...] that are out of all proportion to its size." This becomes particularly tragic when this effect takes the form of contamination.
The concern here is this: just as leaven can permeate an entire batch of dough, so the sin of an individual can defile the whole church. However, such defilement does not correspond to the standing into which the church has been placed through the death of Christ. For the death of Christ, pictorially illustrated in the Passover lamb, has cleansed and sanctified the church to such an extent that it is already unleavened. Verse 7 highlights the potential discrepancy between the status and the practice of the church. Morris describes this as a "become what you are" situation. This distinction and tension between what the church is in Christ (indicative) and what it ought to become in its practice (imperative) runs through all of Paul's writings. On the basis of this theological truth, the Corinthians are now to act by cleansing the church of evil. This certainly includes the individual concerned, but it also goes beyond him.
Thus, the exclusion of an unrepentant sinner also serves to ensure that the church maintains the holy character conferred upon it by Christ's sacrificial death. If this exhortation is not implemented, that person defiles the church through their influence.
The Individual Concerned
Although the primary focus of the text, as seen above, lies on the church as a collective, it also addresses the intended effect on the individual.
Verses 4 and 5 describe the procedure to be carried out, and thus the excommunication from the Christian community. The purpose is the spiritual salvation of the person, as made clear by the addition "on the day of the Lord." This also makes clear that if this measure is omitted, it ultimately redounds to the harm of the person living in sin—for the measure is intended for their ultimate good.
The phrase "hand over to Satan" describes the process of excluding the individual from the privileges of the Christian community, thereby handing them over to the realm of Satan's dominion outside the church (Col 1:13; 1 John 5:19). It appears elsewhere only in 1 Tim 1:20. The text seems to indicate that "handing over to Satan" was a recognized measure in Pauline churches, consisting of excluding individuals from the church—the realm of Christ's rule. As in the passage in 1 Corinthians, the purpose with Hymenaeus and Alexander is also the restoration of the individuals concerned.
"'Satan' (1 Tim 5:15) refers to the supernatural adversary of God and the church (1 Thess 2:18; Mark 4:15), who is viewed here as serving God's purposes by overseeing the discipline of sinners (Job 2:6)."
How the "destruction of the flesh" should be understood is widely debated. The interpretation depends on whether "flesh" is understood as human sinful nature or as the physical body. The indication that the restoration of the sinner is the goal seems to rule out death as a punishment. Thiselton argues that "what is to be destroyed is probably not primarily the physical body of the offender (though this may or may not be secondarily included), but rather the 'fleshly' attitude of self-sufficiency which Paul attributes primarily to the church, but certainly also to the man." Addressing this question in greater detail would exceed the scope of this article. Crucial here is first of all that Satan serves as an instrument of God to move the sinner toward repentance through a process of distress.
Criteria for Church Discipline
Beyond the specific situation that Paul takes as an occasion to write about church discipline, it is often forgotten that the apostle also names other reasons that should prompt a collective distancing of the church from an individual.
Several points must be noted here so that such a drastic measure is not applied in inappropriate contexts. The fact that Paul writes not of acts (e.g., idolatry) but of persons (e.g., idolaters) seems to indicate that these individuals are thoroughly characterized by the respective action—comparable to the man discussed in the first verses of chapter 5. Thus, it concerns continuous, unrepentant sinning. Furthermore, it concerns actions, not motives—even though the latter naturally precede actions. Morris writes: "Paul passes from spirit to deed." What Paul emphasizes particularly strongly is that this involves individuals who are called a brother (ὀνομαζόμενος)—with the idea that these individuals also view themselves as such and accept it. Thus he writes in verses 9–10.
Fitzmyer writes: "Although Paul acknowledges that Corinthian Christians share this world with such people, he hardly advocates that Christians live in a ghetto or withdraw to a desert retreat [...]."
The fact that the list of evil deeds varies between verse 10 and verse 11—some are absent in verse 10, for example—shows that this is not an exhaustive list, but rather a set of examples. The ethical catalog Paul formulates here shows several parallels to the one found in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, although the latter is more detailed. The focus is therefore more strongly on the fact that their behavior contradicts their confession of Christ and that they thus do more harm to the church than unbelieving sinners. As Origen wrote: "Immoral unbelievers cannot harm the church, but immoral believers ruin it from within, which is why they must be avoided and excluded."
Rosner derives the sins mentioned from the regulations in Deuteronomy regarding when a person is to be purged from the community. At the same time, however, there are also interesting parallels between the sins mentioned and the specific context of Corinth. Below is a brief explanation of the sins listed:
- Sexually immoral person (πόρνος): The word porneia is an umbrella term encompassing various sexual sins, referring broadly to an unlawful sexual relationship.
- Greedy / Covetous person (πλεονέκτης): Greedy persons are individuals who constantly desire more than they already possess. Greed was a defining feature of Corinthian culture, which heavily revolved around ascending to greater social status, power, or wealth.
- Robber / Swindler (ἅρπαξ): This refers to persons who attempt to obtain others' money through fraud, thereby accumulating "quick and disproportionate" wealth.
- Idolater (εἰδωλολάτρης): Later passages in the letter (8:1 to 11:1) address the danger for Corinthian Christians of making wrong compromises with the surrounding idolatry. "New Testament usage does not limit the term to the worship of images, but extends it to the soul's devotion to any object that takes the place of God." In the present context, however, the term likely refers primarily to the actual worship of pagan gods rather than such a broadened understanding.
- Slanderer / Reviler (λοίδορος): This designates individuals whose style of communication is habitually aimed at disparaging others and thereby indirectly raising their own profile.
- Drunkard (μέθυσος): Drunkenness is frequently condemned in Scripture (Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 6:10) and is particularly severe due to the consequences it can entail, such as violence and recklessness. Excessive alcohol consumption thus stands in fundamental opposition to Christian virtues.
Application of Church Discipline
This topic may seem far removed from everyday reality for some, as church discipline is rarely practiced today. The reasons for this are manifold. Orr, for example, mentions that such measures are perceived as unloving and simultaneously ineffective. Bad experiences stemming from the abuse of this commandment can also contribute to avoiding the practice altogether out of caution. Below, we outline what Paul understood by his command and how it can be understood practically today.
What "Not to Associate" Means
Much of the severity of the interpretation depends on how verse 11 is understood. Here Paul writes his instructions.
The Elberfelder Bible renders μηδὲ συνεσθίειν as "not even to eat." However, Schwiebert argues on the basis of sentence structure and the usual meaning of the word that this translation is incorrect. He summarizes: "The grammar experts thus agree (apart from the classification of 1 Cor 5:11 in the BAGD dictionary) that 'and not, nor' is the normal meaning of μηδέ, unless a stronger meaning is demanded by specific constructions that are absent in 1 Cor 5:11. In other words: 'not even' is, grammatically speaking, an over-translation of the passage and should be avoided unless it would simply make no sense to render the term as 'and not, nor.'"
Practically speaking, if this argument holds, Paul equates the command not to associate with the command not to eat with such a person. Schwiebert explains this equivalence through the cultural context of the time, in which—"as in many non-Western cultures today—eating together with someone was a form of social recognition. For such cultures, the act of 'eating together' (συνεσθίειν / synesthíein) does not merely symbolize a common cause, kinship, acceptance, etc., but rather embodies or enacts it. Refusing to eat with a specific person would embody the opposite: rejection or exclusion."According to Schwiebert, exclusion from table fellowship is thus an essential part of what it means to be excluded from the community.
But what does that mean in concrete terms? Morris acknowledges: "The detailed application of this instruction is not easy." The fact that the text leaves open what contact with such a person should look like in detail makes it harder to formulate precise directions for today. Thiselton's commentary is helpful here: "Paul calls for a nuanced discrimination regarding boundaries, a corporate identity, and a recognition of the Christian church as a collective witness to explicit convictions, values, and ways of life. The recipients are to use their judgment to determine how this is worked out in practice so that no one is confused, and a man such as the immoral offender is left in no doubt as to where he stands in relation to the community."
In individual cases, it must therefore be examined in context at what point contact with such a person creates that affirming fellowship which blurs the boundary between the church and the sinner—and thus crosses that line.
Conclusion
In summary, church discipline is the response commanded by Paul of the church to a persistent and unrepentant breach of those norms that stem from Christian identity. What is striking is that Paul does not address himself primarily to the individual concerned, but consistently to the church as a whole. It is the church that is to mourn, to judge, and to remove the sinner from its midst. The purpose is to preserve the holiness of the community and its witness, and practically this response manifests in the breaking off of affirming social contact—up to and including table fellowship. For all its seriousness, however, it must be emphasized that this measure is not aimed at punishment. For both the church and the individual, its true ultimate goal is restoration.