1. Proposed Solutions

(1) Some scholars argue that ‘handing over to Satan’ is a death sentence; Paul expects his sentence to result in the man's death.Footnote ⁷ Scholars who hold to the death interpretation often point to Ananias's and Sapphira's deaths in Acts 5.1–10, the death Paul mentions in 1 Cor 11.30–32 occurring within the Corinthian community as a result of their aberrant observance of the Lord's Supper, curse and expulsion pronouncements in Qumran texts,Footnote ⁸ and curse formulae in magical papyri.Footnote ⁹ In an essay entitled, ‘A Critique of the “Curse/Death” Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8’, James T. South has provided compelling refutations of the death interpretation, even if his own proposed solutions fail to convince.Footnote ¹⁰

South notes that the Greek and Jewish curse formulae are not genuine parallels to 1 Cor 5.5: not only are all the Greek magical texts at least a century later than Paul, but in none of the Greek magical texts is a person handed over to Satan. In addition, the magical documents are not communal documents.Footnote ¹¹ Concerning the Qumran formulae, South concludes that the evidence is inconclusive.Footnote ¹² We may note that those outside the community of the sons of light are to be destroyed by Belial (CD 7.21–8.3), and this would, therefore, by definition apply to those expelled from the elect community.Footnote ¹³ This destruction is eschatological, however; it will occur on the ‘day of God's visitation’. 1 Corinthians 5.5, in contrast, does not posit eschatological death or destruction of the incestuous man, but rather eschatological salvation. Finally, as South notes, Acts 5.1–11 and 1 Cor 11.30 are also not genuine parallels. None of these deaths are due to Satan's agency; instead, the Spirit or divine agency may be involved in both deaths.

The most recent detailed study of 1 Cor 5 attempts to recover the curse/death interpretation. David Raymond Smith surveys a wide range of ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman curse (or ‘binding’) traditions and situates 1 Cor 5 within the wider context of cursing in Paul's cultural milieu.Footnote ¹⁴ While acknowledging the weaknesses of previous curse/death interpretations, Smith argues that Paul's words in 1 Cor 5.5 bear a ‘conceptual resonance’ with the wider common language of cursing in his cultural milieu. Most, if not all, of the arguments presented in Smith's work will be dealt with directly or indirectly in the course of our own treatment of this passage. For now, we note that at best Smith's arguments do establish that 1 Cor 5.5 envisions some form of physical affliction and exclusion, but not necessarily death. Smith, for example, points to the phrase γυνὴ πατρός as establishing a biblical context of cursing and ‘destruction’ (i.e. death) in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.Footnote ¹⁵ The Deuteronomy and Leviticus background to 1 Cor 5 cannot be denied. As a number of commentators have noted, for example, the six sins Paul lists in 1 Cor 5.11 correlate with six passages in Deuteronomy that call for the death penalty, followed by the formula of exclusion that Paul quotes in 1 Cor 5.13: ‘So you shall drive out the evil person from among you’.Footnote ¹⁶ Nonetheless, as William Horbury has shown, commandments for execution were widely interpreted in the Second Temple period as implying exclusion and expulsion from the community.Footnote ¹⁷ Indeed, in light of the Deuteronomy background to 1 Cor 5, if death is meant in 1 Cor 5.5, then it is difficult to see why others in the Corinthian congregation who indulge in, for example, sexual immorality (cf. 1 Cor 6.9–20; Deut 22.13–30) and idolatry (cf. 1 Cor 10.19–22; Deut 13.1–5; 17.2–7) should escape a death curse. Herein lies a major weakness in Smith's position and other studies on this passage: a failure to establish the uniqueness of the man's case in 1 Cor 5. We will develop this thought in subsequent sections.

Smith also notes ‘resonances’ between 1 Cor 5.5, 1 Tim 1.20, and Job 2.6.Footnote ¹⁸ These ‘resonances’, however, do not establish death as the fate of the incestuous man at Corinth. In both 1 Tim 1.20 and Job 2.6 ‘handing over to Satan’ involves some form of physical affliction that does not result in death, but rather produces transformation in the afflicted person. We will argue this position in detail later. Finally, we should also note that the evidence from 1 Cor 11.30–34, which Smith points to, might seem to support a curse/death interpretation of 1 Cor 5. But this seems to us specious reasoning. 1 Corinthians 11 is a case of judgment inflicted directly by God.Footnote ¹⁹ More specifically, it concerns irreverent contact with the dangerous presence of God; and this evokes OT images of God's holiness and the danger that God's holiness poses to those who fail to handle it with care.Footnote ²⁰ This must be distinguished from ‘handing over to Satan’.

Against the curse/death interpretation, we may note in addition to the above that Paul never describes death anywhere as a ‘destruction of the flesh’;Footnote ²¹ and, as we shall argue below, Paul's mode of dealing with deviant believers elsewhere (specifically 2 Cor 2.1–11; Gal 6.1; and 2 Thess 3.14–15) does not fit with the death interpretation. In the end, the biggest challenge to the curse/death interpretation of this passage is how to account for the soteriological purpose of the πνεῦμα expressed in 5.5.Footnote ²² Indeed, as Matthias Konradt notes, Paul's soteriology rules out the possibility of ascribing atoning significance to the death of the incestuous man: ‘Sühnende Kraft hat allein der Tod Jesu’.Footnote ²³

The latter objection forces us to detect that some notion of repentance or transformation is implied in Paul's sentence in 1 Cor 5.5.Footnote ²⁴ That is why the alternative position that views Paul's sentence as referring to some form of physical suffering,Footnote ²⁵ with remedial purpose, seems more plausible.Footnote ²⁶ This is the position we adopt in this essay; and we will later argue for this position using the book of Job.

(2) Some scholars argue that the ‘spirit’ of 1 Cor 5.5 is not the ‘spirit’ of the incestuous man but the Holy Spirit who resides within the community.Footnote ²⁷ While this view is correct to draw attention to the fact that πνεῦμα in 5.5 is not preceded by the pronoun αὐτοῦ, it still fails to take seriously the soteriological significance of the verb σῴζω in Paul. Claims such as, ‘if they [the community] have defiled the Spirit by, for example, sexual sins, the Spirit will be lost to the community and they [the community] will be excluded from the kingdom of God’Footnote ²⁸ or ‘by removing the one immoral member from the community the membership keeps the Spirit of Christ, while the Spirit is effectively taken from the immoral man’,Footnote ²⁹ are unsuccessful attempts to circumvent the setbacks confronting this view. It is perhaps significant that this view quickly elides the salvation of the ‘Spirit’ into salvation of ‘the community’, and thereby collapses the distinction between the two entities. In the final analysis, this position stumbles on the very fact that the Spirit, as God's own Spirit (1 Cor 2.12) and the sign of believers' adoption as ‘sons’ with Christ (Rom 8.14–17; Gal 4.6), never requires salvation in Paul.

The view that ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ in 1 Cor 5.5 denote Paul's typical contrast between these two terms also needs to be evaluated. According to this view, by putting the man out of the believing community, Paul's desire was for the destruction of the fleshly or carnal nature in the man (or the churchFootnote ³⁰) to be destroyed.Footnote ³¹ This position expands our semantic range beyond anthropological categories and acknowledges the view, present in early Judaism and Christianity, that Satan can at times serve God's purpose.Footnote ³² Nonetheless, if ‘flesh’ in 1 Cor 5.5 refers to the fleshly or carnal nature, then this passage contradicts everything Paul has to say about the fleshly nature elsewhere. In Paul, Satan is never the agent through whom the fleshly nature is overcome. It is actually the reverse: Satan seeks to entice and revive the fleshly desires. That is why Paul refers to Satan as the ‘Tempter’ (ὁ πειράζων) in 1 Thess 3.5; and only two chapters after our pericope, Paul admonishes married couples not to deprive each other of sex, so that Satan will not tempt (πειράζω) them (1 Cor 7.5). On the contrary, it is the Holy Spirit who aids believers in their struggle to curb the desires of the flesh (Rom 7–8; Gal 5–6). Thus, it is exegetically unsupportable and theologically unwarranted to posit Satan as the agent of destruction of the incestuous man's fleshly desires.Footnote ³³ Paul's own characterization of the man's transgression shows that he does not expect those outside the body of Christ to have control over their fleshly nature: ‘Actually, sexual immorality is reported among you, and of a kind that is not condonedFootnote ³⁴even among the Gentiles’ (5.1). Not even Gentiles condone porneia of this kind, which means, in essence, that Gentiles do condone certain kinds of porneia, while all forms of porneia are forbidden in the body of Christ (cf. 5.9–11). In addition, Paul's statement to the Corinthians that to shun the sexually immoral, covetous, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and robbers of the world would mean having to escape the world entirely (5.10) tells us all we need to know about what Paul thinks of moral standards outside the body of Christ. Thus, it seems absurd, to say the least, to suggest that Paul, who views the Holy Spirit given to the body of Christ as the believer's aid in the battle against the impulses of the flesh, would put an incestuous man outside the church to learn to control his fleshly nature.

(3) We turn now to our final question—whether handing over to Satan is a sentence to be carried out in each case of immorality (including the vice list in 5.9–10) in the church. Paul had previously written to the Corinthians not to associate with certain immoral persons (5.9–10). The Corinthians (mis)understood Paul to be saying that they should not associate with all immoral persons. Paul, therefore, clarifies his position in the present letter by emphasizing that the ‘judgment’ about which he speaks applies only to someone who is called believer (lit. ‘brother’) and yet lives in immorality (5.11). Believers are within their place to judge those within the body of Christ; but God will judge those on the outside (5.12). Thus, the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ who practice sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, slander, drunkenness, or robbery must be excluded from the fellowship of believers (5.11). As previously noted, the vices are likely taken from a list of offenses in Deuteronomy that call for the death penalty. And since some of these offenses were already present in the Corinthian community (e.g., 6.7–8, 9–20; 10.18–22; 11.21), it is highly unlikely that Paul would recommend that every believer caught in one of these sins be handed over to Satan.Footnote ³⁵

The sentence Paul wants the church to mete out to this offender is extremely severe and goes beyond mere exclusion (though the sentence involves exclusion [5.2, 13]). Thus, contrary to a number of commentaries on this passage,Footnote ³⁶ Paul is not dealing with mere exclusion or excommunication per se.Footnote ³⁷ Paul could have phrased his demand in a number of ways if he wanted the congregation merely to expel this man from its fellowship. For example, Paul could have written:

The above proposal could have been accomplished without the context of worship, without Paul being present in spirit, and without the power of Jesus Christ.Footnote ³⁹ Thus, the practice to be carried out is first of all a community practice and can only be accomplished with the power of Jesus.Footnote ⁴⁰ A correct interpretation of this passage must, as a result, go beyond mere expulsion in attempting to account for the nature of the punishment. It must also account for why this particular man receives such a severe sentence. In short, there is a causal thread between the man's actions and his severe sentence that must be established for a correct interpretation.

Paul's harsh sentence cannot be explained simply by appeal to the gross nature of the offense, one that supposedly ‘does not occur’Footnote ⁴¹ even among the Gentiles (5.1). As evidence from Tacitus (Annals 6.19), Martial (Epigrammata 4.16), and Dio Cassius (Roman History 58.22) shows, cases of incest are well documented among Gentiles, though they were unlawful and unacceptable.Footnote ⁴² Thus, if this was simply a case of human weakness on the part of the offender, or indifference on the part of the church, one would expect Paul's response to be admonishment, as is found in Gal 6.1 (cf. 1 Cor 8–10; 2 Thess 3.14–15; Titus 3.10; Matt 18.15–17). The connection between the man's deeds and Paul's decrying of the church's lackadaisical response is significant, for it is likely that this man's deeds were an ostentatious display of depravity that also received theological justification from the perpetrator.Footnote ⁴³ As Paul tells us, the man was performing his deeds ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, 5.3–4). The phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ could be taken as modifying the verb συναχθέντων (‘When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus’),Footnote ⁴⁴ or the verb κέκρικα (‘I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus’).Footnote ⁴⁵ The word order, however, rules out the first option, since elsewhere in Paul the same prepositional phrase follows the verb it modifies (cf. 1 Cor 6.11; 2 Thess 3.6; Col 3.17). And since in its occurrences in Paul the phrase is never far removed from the verb,Footnote ⁴⁶ the second option is weakened, if not entirely eliminated. Thus, with a number of commentators,Footnote ⁴⁷ we take the prepositional phrase with the verb immediately preceding it, κατεργάζομαι. This seems to us the more natural reading of the text. This reading not only dovetails well with the general tenor of the letter to the Corinthians, but it also helps us to account adequately for Paul's harsh sentence. J. Murphy-O'Connor has argued persuasively that the situation addressed in 1 Cor 5 was viewed by Paul as representative of the arrogance and boasting that characterized the Corinthian community (see 5.2, 6; cf. 3.21; 4.6, 7, 18–19; 6.12; 8.1; 10.23).Footnote ⁴⁸ The Corinthians thought themselves to be in possession of a wisdom and knowledge that permitted them to do whatever they pleased (cf. 6.12–20). Murphy-O'Connor writes: ‘This overweening confidence in their own rightness was born of the sense of difference from others, which was rooted in the fact that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus (cf. 1.13)’.Footnote ⁴⁹ Given such an outlook it is not hard to see the man giving theological justification to his incestuous relationship on the basis of his freedom in Christ (cf. 6.12).

In short, through his deplorable actions, the man seized the freedom to persist in his lifestyle as occasion to perpetrate a false gospel. The man, in essence, had become a false teacher.Footnote ⁵⁰ Paul's severe reprimand of this man, then, is consistent with how he treats false teachers in his letters.Footnote ⁵¹ Earlier in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul identifies the community as God's temple (3.16) and asseverates that God will destroy anyone who destroys the temple of God (3.17). The context suggests that Paul is referring to those who harm the church through false teaching and divisiveness. The same applies to the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5: by justifying his sinful deeds as a theological practice, the man's actions have become analogous to the messengers of Satan masquerading as angels of light (2 Cor 11.1–15).Footnote ⁵² Consequently, when this man is handed over to Satan, with the power of Jesus, it will reveal whose side he truly is on. It is also important to note that in the only other example of persons being handed over to Satan in the early church, 1 Tim 1.20, the culprits are propagating false teaching. In 1 Tim 1.20, we catch a glimpse of how one of our earliest interpreters of Paul sought to apply Paul's enigmatic phrase. The author hands Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan (παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ) so that they will learn not to blaspheme. Persons who were handed over to Satan were those who had the capacity to spread their corrosive views within the body of Christ.

The incestuous man's influence,Footnote ⁵³ if unchecked, will spread like cancer through the body of Christ.Footnote ⁵⁴ He, therefore, needs to be unmasked quickly before he corrodes the church, like yeast working through a batch of dough (5.6).Footnote ⁵⁵ With such a one in the body of Christ, there is no room for boasting (5.6); when tolerating such behavior, the church has no grounds to take pride in its spiritual achievements. As a matter of fact, this is where the church ends up when it begins to focus on, and take pride in, its spirituality, arcane knowledge, and spiritual gifts (4.6–18; 8.1; 13.4; 14.12).Footnote ⁵⁶

Having shown the uniqueness of this man's case and the difficulties inherent in the various proposals for this passage, how do we make sense of this pericope? What do we make of the man's fate? In the following section, we turn to the book of Job, which is echoed in this pericope, as a helpful key to shed further light on this enigmatic Pauline passage. Our own interpretation may not eradicate all the problems this text presents, but we hope to add another dimension to the discussion.

2. Job as Interpretive Key

Paul alludes to the book of Job throughout his letters.Footnote ⁵⁷ He offers direct quotations from Job in Rom 11.35 (Job 41.11) and 1 Cor 3.19 (Job 5.12–13). 1 Corinthians also contains at least four allusions to Job: 1 Cor 1.20 (Job 12.17); 1.24 (Job 12.13); 2.10 (Job 11.7); 4.4 (Job 27.6). Thus, if we can detect a strong echo of Job 2.4–6 in 1 Cor 5.5,Footnote ⁵⁸ we may be on safe grounds to look to Job as a possible background for our interpretation of 1 Cor 5. The concepts are similar and the verbal resemblances are stronger than any of the parallels often adduced for 1 Cor 5.5, despite some divergences. A closer examination of Paul's anthropological terms may account for the divergences in anthropological terminology.

Both texts are worth quoting at this point:

• ὑπολαβὼν δὲ ὁ διάβολοςFootnote ⁵⁹ εἶπεν τῷ κυρίῳ

• δέρμα ὑπὲρ δέρματος

• ὅσα ὑπάρχει ἀνθρώπῳ ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ ἐκτείσει

• οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ ἀποστείλας τὴν χεῖρά σου ἅψαι τῶν ὀστῶν

• αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτοῦ

• εἰ μὴν εἰς πρόσωπόν σε εὐλογήσειFootnote ⁶⁰

• εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος τῷ διαβόλῳ Ἰδοὺ παραδίδωμί σοι αὐτόν

• μόνον τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ διαϕύλαξον (Job 2.4–6).Footnote ⁶¹

• παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός

• ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου (1 Cor 5.5).Footnote ⁶²

In both Job 2 and 1 Cor 5, a man is handed over (παραδίδωμι) to Satan. The OG translates the Hebrew השׂטן (‘The satan’) with ὁ διάβολος. In the NT, διάβολος and σατανᾶς are synonyms for the Devil.Footnote ⁶³ Paul, however, never uses the term διάβολος; his preferred term is σατανᾶς.Footnote ⁶⁴

The anthropological terms used in the two texts present a challenge, though not an insurmountable one. In Job, God permits Satan to afflict Job's ὀστέον καὶ σάρξ (bone and flesh [MT עצם ו בשׂר]; cf. 2.7), but Job's ψυχή (MT נפשׁ) is off limits.Footnote ⁶⁵ Paul relatively seldom uses ψυχή in his letters.Footnote ⁶⁶ Paul never places ψυχή in proximity to σάρξ, and he never contrasts ψυχή with σάρξ.Footnote ⁶⁷ His preferred pair is σάρξ and πνεῦμα.Footnote ⁶⁸ On one occasion he contrasts ψυχή with πνεῦμα (1 Cor 15.45); and this contrast may also be implied in the antithesis between the cognate terms ψυχικός and πνευματικός (1 Cor 2.14; 15.44, 46; cf. Jas 3.15; Jude 19). ψυχικός is also synonymous in Paul with two cognates of σάρξ, σάρκινος and σαρκικός, words also often contrasted with πνευματικός (1 Cor 3.1–3; 9.11; 2 Cor 1.12; 3.3; 10.4; Rom 7.14; 15.27). Thus, if the author of 1 Peter, for example, can set σαρκικός in opposition to ψυχή (1 Pet 2.11), such a move would be extremely unlikely for Paul, because Paul seems to regard the ψυχή as being very close to the σάρξ.

These observations may explain the verbal divergences between Paul and the OG translation of Job. If Paul's wording in 1 Cor 5.5 is based on OG Job, it should come as no surprise that Paul would move away from the OG translator's pair of σάρξ and ψυχή to his own preferred pair of σάρξ and πνεῦμα.Footnote ⁶⁹ When σάρξ and πνεῦμα stand together in Paul, they are often theological pairs denoting different human orientations toward God.Footnote ⁷⁰ However, in Col 2.5 Paul provides a σάρξ–πνεῦμα contrast that has anthropological emphasis. It is perhaps also significant to note that Paul uses σάρξ to refer to human and animal physical bodies in passages such as 1 Cor 15.39 and 1 Cor 15.50. Finally, in 1 Cor 2.11 Paul speaks of the human πνεῦμα.Footnote ⁷¹

It seems, therefore, plausible that Paul has Job in mind when he formulates 1 Cor 5.5. If there are divergences in vocabulary, and if these divergences seem to stand in tension with Paul's general anthropology,Footnote ⁷² it is the result of Paul's desire to conform the basic form of his OT text with his own preferred terminology, while still retaining an echo of his source. And if Paul has the book of Job in mind, the point of contact is not between the sexually immoral man and Job;Footnote ⁷³ rather, the points of contact lie in the role Satan plays in both 1 Corinthians 5 and Job, and the role God plays in Job, which is assumed by Paul and the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians. It should come as no surprise to the attentive listener that Paul (together with the church) assumes the role God plays in Job, for in the segue into this pericope (1 Cor 4.21)—which we have argued echoes Ps 89.32–33—Paul has already assumed God's rod of chastisement. Thus, in both Job and 1 Corinthians God, or a representative of God, hands a person over (παραδίδωμι) to Satan for the affliction of his physical flesh.

When we first encounter SatanFootnote ⁷⁴ in Job, we are given a hint that he may have attempted previously to gain access to Job's life. But this has been unsuccessful, since, in his words, ‘[God has] put a fence, on every side, around [Job] and his house and all that he has’ (Job 1.10). For Satan to get to Job, God must remove this protective hedge, though God still places limits on Satan's power. God gives Satan permission to afflict Job's flesh and bones, but Satan can go no further.

In 1 Cor 5 also the sexually immoral man is enjoying a protective hedge by being a member of the body of Christ. Paul's own argument presupposes this: he orders the man to be handed over to Satan and in an equivalent command also orders that the sexually immoral person be put out of their fellowship (5.13). In other words, the only way that Satan can have access to this man is if the protective hedge the man is enjoying is removed.Footnote ⁷⁵ Christ has rescued believers from the present evil age (Gal 1.4), but those who are outside the body of Christ are ruled by the god of this age (cf. 2 Cor 4.4; Gal 1.4).Footnote ⁷⁶ Participation in the body of Christ ensures some protection from the evil powers of this age.

This insight finds further confirmation in Paul's allusion to the Passover in 1 Cor 5.8: ‘Cleanse out the old yeast that you may be a new batch of dough—just as you really are unleavened; for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed’. Paul introduces the Passover as the occasion to purge all leaven, a symbol of all that is unclean and pollutes. This image provides an explanation for Paul's call for the immoral man's expulsion.

Yet our discussion of the limits of Satan's power recalls another important aspect of the Passover. The Passover was instituted to commemorate the passing over of the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when the angel of death came to strike down the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exod 12.26–27). All the Israelites who marked their doors with the blood of the lamb were protected from the angel of death. The reverse is also true: those Israelites who did not distinguish themselves with the mark of blood would have suffered the same fate as the Egyptians. Inherent in the Passover celebration, then, is the conviction that members of the community of the elect do enjoy God's protection from the destructive powers of evil. The blood of the lamb marked the Israelites out as a community under God's protection.Footnote ⁷⁷ In the same way, believers, having been bought with a price—the precious blood of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1.30; 6.20; 7.23; 1 Pet 1.18–19; Rev 5.9)—are under God's protection from the power of Satan. Thus, this immoral member will need to be thrust out of the body of Christ before Satan can have full access to his flesh.

It is important for us to qualify the protection believers enjoy from the powers of evil, since the protection is not absolute. This point not only picks up an important theme that runs through Paul's letters—that the total destruction of the powers belongs to the end (cf. 1 Cor 15.24–25; Rom 8.22–23)—but it also helps to make sense of the urgency with which Paul treats this case. The powers are actively operating in the world; and if their devices are not quickly unmasked, they can gain entry into the church. While members of the body of Christ may enjoy some protection from the powers, believers have to be vigilant in this ongoing struggle with the powers, for the powers are continually working to gain entry into the body of Christ.Footnote ⁷⁸ Here 2 Cor 2.5–11 provides a very instructive parallel to our pericope, not only because it reflects the remedial purpose behind the church's discipline of offenders but also because Satan emerges as a factor in the church's handling of the offender.

In 2 Cor 2.1–11, Paul recalls a painful visit made to Corinth that occasioned a painful letter (2 Cor 2.3–4). A member of the Corinthian church has committed a grave offense. The identity of the offender and the nature of the offense are matters of speculation.Footnote ⁷⁹ What can be said with certainty is that Paul made calls for the punishment of this offender, which the Corinthian church eventually heeded (2 Cor 2.6). In 2 Cor 2.1–11, Paul appeals for forgiveness of, and reconciliation with, the one who caused both him and the church much grief. It is within this other context of church discipline that Paul again introduces Satan, just as he had done previously in 1 Cor 5: ‘But if you have forgiven anyone, I also have. And what I have forgiven—if I have forgiven anything—I have done so in the presence of Christ (ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ) for your sake, in order that Satan might not take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his schemes’ (2.10–11). The key to understanding Satan's role in this passage may lie in the phrase ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ. While this phrase could mean ‘in the person of Christ’, or ‘as representative of Christ’ (REB; NEB),Footnote ⁸⁰ the reference to Satan suggests that a Semitism from the Hebrew לפני, ‘in the presence of Christ’, is preferable. The phrase echoes the tradition of Satan as the Accuser of the elect before God, which we have already encountered in Job (cf. Job 1.6–9; Zech 3.1–2). This OT tradition is developed further in Second Temple Jewish literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, where Mastema (משׂטמה)—likely a variation of שׂטןFootnote ⁸¹—and his cohorts accuse humanity before God.Footnote ⁸² Paul echoes this tradition in the letter to the Romans: ‘Who will bring accusations against God's elect? God does the acquitting; who is to render a verdict of guilt?’ (Rom 8.33–34).Footnote ⁸³ It is probable that this is the tradition Paul has in mind in 2 Cor 2.10–11 when he connects Satan with forgiveness ‘in the presence of Christ’.

According to this tradition, Satan is able to bring accusation before God against the elect upon discovery of some perceived transgression on the part of the elect. In Second Temple Jewish literature, Satan is often barred by angels from bringing accusations.Footnote ⁸⁴ However, in Paul's own appropriation of this tradition, it is Christ Jesus, seated at the right hand of God, who intercedes for believers against the one who might bring accusations (Rom 8.33–34). Thus, in 2 Cor 2.10, when Paul forgives in the presence of Christ, he is in essence calling on the believer's intercessor as a witnessFootnote ⁸⁵ to his actions, and thus arms Christ—the defense attorney, to use a modern analogy—with evidence to counter Satan's charges.Footnote ⁸⁶

Within the worldview described here, how believers live their lives matters, for Satan uses perceived transgressions of believers as an opportunity to gain access beyond the limits God has set for him. This is precisely Satan's scheme; and Paul is not ignorant of this scheme against the Corinthian body. If the Corinthians do not forgive and become reconciled with the repentant brother, Satan will exploit the situation.Footnote ⁸⁷ Satan seeks to ‘take advantage of’ (πλεονεκτηθῶμεν,Footnote ⁸⁸ 2 Cor 2.11) the church. In the OG of Hab 2.9 and Ezek 22.27 the verb πλεονεκτέω translates the Hebrew בצע, which denotes an ‘unlawful gain’.Footnote ⁸⁹ Paul declares that Satan will attempt to use the unmerciful stance of the church as a means to claim more than his due with the church and afflict the Corinthian body.Footnote ⁹⁰ This insight suggests that if the church demonstrates an unmerciful stance in their dealing with the incestuous man—i.e., deal with him in a way that leaves no room for repentance and reconciliation—then Satan will attempt to take more than his due with the community.

The above discussion may also provide us with a reason for why Paul wants the Corinthians to expel the incestuous man from their midst: Satan will seek to gain access into the community if this transgression is not purged. While the body of Christ may be providing a protective hedge around this immoral person, it is also the very presence of this immorality within the body that, if unchecked, would eventually give Satan access to the body. The church, therefore, ought to be mourningFootnote ⁹¹ this man's deeds, rather than boasting of their newly discovered wisdom (5.2). The immoral man needs to be thrown out of the body (5.13). Paul is not as concerned with the evildoers outside the body of Christ, since Satan already has access to these people: those outside the believing community are governed by the wisdom of this age and ruled by the god of this age (2 Cor 4.4). It is the body of Christ that Satan wants access to; and as long as there are unrepentant transgressors—who also give theological justification to their deplorable deeds—within the body, Satan will find his way into the body. That is why immorality within the body needs to be unmasked quickly and expelled, for it will damage not only the immoral person but also the body of Christ: Satan must be prohibited from gaining access into the body of Christ by means of the corrupting influence of an unrepentant immoral member. In short, in order to prevent Satan from taking more than his due with the body of Christ, the believing community has a responsibility to purge corrosive sins from its midst and to do so graciously, leaving room for repentance and reconciliation.

Nonetheless, as noted previously, Paul is not demanding mere excommunication in 1 Cor 5. A letter of expulsion would not achieve the result Paul desires. Neither would a delegation sent to inform the man that he could not return to the church achieve this result. Paul's claim that the kingdom of God is not a matter of speech (4.20) rules out these possibilities. The kingdom of God is a matter of power (4.20); that is why the ‘power of our Lord Jesus’ (5.4) must be present in order for the Corinthian community to be able to carry out this practice. The community's action is a spiritual practice that results in spiritual exclusion, one that places a person spiritually outside the body of Christ. A comparison with Paul's own physical absence is apt. While Paul is physically absent from Corinth, he will actually be present at Corinth in spirit (5.3) when this practice is carried out.Footnote ⁹² In contrast, when this spiritual practice is effectively carried out, even if this incestuous man may make his way to the gathering of the church on occasion, as long as he remains unrepentant, he is spiritually excluded from the body. Unlike what Paul has to say about his actual presence in 5.3, then, should this man remain unrepentant after the community's action, even if he should find himself physically present with the church, he will be absent in the spirit. Yet for the sake of protecting the body from Satan's schemes, and in order to prevent this man's influence from spreading like yeast, this practice must also include physical expulsion from the church. All this is difficult for the modern mind to grasp; but we need to remember that Paul was not writing for twenty-first-century rationalists.

As discussed earlier, a number of scholars understand the phrase ‘hand over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh’ to mean death.Footnote ⁹³ But 2 Cor 2.5–11, as a parallel incident of the church's dealing with a wayward member, shows that Paul is not calling for the incestuous man's death.Footnote ⁹⁴ The allusions to Ps 89.32–33 and Job 2 also establish Paul's demand as a call for some sort of physical suffering, in hopes that the man will repent and return to the church. God still holds out his love and steadfastness to the covenant amidst punishment in Ps 89.32–33; and Job's suffering results in a change in Job: Job's suffering leads to penitence and Job acquires a new vision of the cosmos (cf. Job 42.6).Footnote ⁹⁵ This interpretation receives further support from 1 Tim 1.20, where Hymenaeus and Alexander are ‘handed over to Satan’ in hopes of achieving a change in their character. Handing over to Satan, therefore, also has a remedial purpose for the author of 1 Timothy. Our own analysis of 1 Cor 5 confirms the author of 1 Timothy's interpretation of this sentence in Paul. Paul's hope is that the incestuous man's physical affliction will result in a change in him and an eventual return to the community of believers.Footnote ⁹⁶

Was this severe discipline by Paul and the Corinthian church successful, and did the incestuous man repent of his deeds? We have no way of verifying what was the outcome of the church's discipline on the incestuous man. But if this discipline achieved its intended purpose, we can easily imagine Paul penning these words to the man: