Paul begins this part of his letter expressing his disappointment in the Corinthians stubborn refusal to fully embrace a righteous life in Christ—as Paul had established in them when he laid the foundation. Perhaps these Gentile just prefer shoddy construction. But here, the congregation’s choice to approve sexually immoral behavior that sinks below even Roman sexual mores: in this case, a son having a sexual relationship with his stepmother, is simply too much for the apostle. In both Galatians 5:19 and 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Paul as already in his letters pointed out the porneia is incompatible with the righteousness that God demands. Here in Corinth it is a social issue that may even threaten the reputation of the Church if allowed to continue.

Paul would likely have in mind Leviticus 18:8, “You are not to have sex with your father’s wife; she is your father’s family.” (CSB) It was against Jewish and Roman law for a man to marry his step. The act is condemned in multiple places in the OT; Deuteronomy 28:20 is an example: “’The one who sleeps with his father’s wife is cursed, for he has violated his father’s marriage bed. And all the people will say, “Amen.”’” According to Leviticus 18:29 those guilty of the act are to be cut-off. 

This is the second time in as many chapters where Paul uses the word arrogant to describe the Corinthians. The first use is in 4:6 in reference to leaders in the congregation favoring some members over others. Also, it appears that they are adding stipulations and conditions to what they have received from Paul. “’Nothing beyond what is written.’” Maybe the Corinthians thought that they knew better—that this isn’t something that is all that bad (They’re both consenting adults.), or maybe they tolerated this because of who was doing it? Regardless, both possibilities arise from Paul’s concern that the Corinthians are refusing to sacrifice their old way of life for the one that they received in Jesus Christ. 

Paul has confidence that they know what must be done with the man because he is with them in spirit. He reminds them that they must cut the member off. “…hand that one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” The only hope that this man has to receiving salvation on the day of the Lord is for the congregation to remove him from their midst. 

R.F. Collins draws a parallel to Job’s dealings with Satan and his travails where Satan, “appears as an apocalyptic source of temptation, is God’s agent, not God’s enemy.” (Sacra Pagina, Vol. 7, 212) Acting as God’s agent, Satan’s impact on this man, Paul may believe, will force him to return to Christ’s righteousness. He isn’t suggesting that man’s physical body needs to be destroyed but, rather, the deeds and works of the flesh. Remember, Paul has already told the Corinthians that whatever house they build will have to stand the test. 

The consequences for the Corinthian’s acceptance of one of its members porneia apply beyond just the man’s risk of losing his salvation; it threatens the very existence of the Corinthian church. The church is taking pride in the fact that this man is part of the community—remember, this affair is ongoing—and, as mentioned already, it either approves of what he is doing (“That’s no big deal.”), or this man brings something to the community: social credibility or financial gain (“Look who’s a member of our church.”). Regardless, a leaven is all that is needed. A church’s celebration of sin, Paul says, will only lead to one end. But like with the man who still has the opportunity—though “through fire”—to receive salvation, so too does the Corinthian church. “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new unleavened batch, as indeed you are. For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.” 

This harkens back to Paul’s trouble with the Galatians. He had brought to them the gospel of Christ and thought that they were well on their way, only to learn that they had taken up the law and search for justification through it; they had received Jesus but has chosen to let Him go. Paul, in fact, considered all his efforts to the Galatians a waste of time, so it is understandable why he is so emphatic with the Corinthians in this. Because they have received Christ and His Spirit, they are able to put away the old practices, the old ways of thinking, and the worldly desires. The Corinthians ARE CHANGED, Paul says, so now is time to let go of the old and enter life anew. 

The community must put away kakia, “badness” or “depravity”, and poneria, “wickedness” or “baseness”—interpreted for some reason in the CSB as malice and evil. However, putting away their depravity and baseness is not enough; Paul tells them that they must take on new qualities and not just expunge the old ones: eilikrineia, “sincerity” or “purity of motive”, and alietheia, “truthfulness” or “dependability” or “uprightness”. In a city where everyone has an ulterior motive in everything they do, this is indeed ne leaven. Paul continues: 

Paul must have written a letter to the Corinthians before this one that has been lost to time, and it seems that mingling and associating with pornoi, “immoral people”, has been a long present issue with the congregation. The apostle reminds them not to associate with the base or the sexually immoral, but he provides a caveat: The Corinthians are urged to disassociate with so-called members of the church that are immoral—not those who are outside of it, “otherwise [they] would have to leave the world.” 

The presence of these base qualities signify that those who practice such things should not remain in the community: The “sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler” must be avoided even casually within the church. Perhaps in the hope that Satan will destroy the flesh so that they might find salvation at the judgement. 

Please take a moment and consider what Paul is says putting the immoral out of the church; consider his stated outcome. Why does Paul criticize the church for not separating from the member who was in a sexual relationship with his stepmother? Was it not so that the man’s worldly desires would be destroyed by Satan so that his soul might be saved at Christ’s judgment? 

The Corinthians are to remove the pornoi from their midst to turn hearts back to Jesus and not to guarantee damnation. Curiously though, Paul tells the Corinthians to judge the immoral within their ranks and put them outside of the church, but he also tells the Corinthians to associate non-judgmentally with the immoral that are outside of the church. So Paul cannot be talking about that practice that we have come to call “shunning”. 

The Greek word that the CSB translates as “associate” in verse nine: “I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people” has a deeper meaning than we usually give it today—which we generalize to mean “to have contact with someone.” The Greek here has a more specific meaning: “to mix up together” or “to mingle”. How can we help turn hearts and minds back to Jesus if we cannot have contact with them? Isn’t the Church Christ’s presence in the world? Hasn’t Paul already told the Corinthians that they are the temple of God—they are the place where the lost can encounter God? 

Paul’s command then cannot reasonably be understood to mean to shun or cut off all contact. No. The apostle tells the church to no longer mingle or mix-together—to socialize—with immoral Christians. The Corinthians are to show no support for their behavior but must, logically, care for their souls. Their presence endangers the effectiveness of work of the Spirit, but they are not to be cast aside totally. How could anyone call shunning like this love?