1 Corinthians 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 over to the world, which Satan controls, with God’s permission of course, for bodily chastisement that might even result in his premature death. [Note: H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 97; S. M. Gilmour, "Pastoral Care in the New Testament Church," New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):395; J. C. Hurd Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians, p.137, p. 286, n. 5; G. W. H. Lampe, "Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians," in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, pp. 349, 353; Morris, pp. 88-89; Johnson, p. 1237; and Bruce, pp. 54-55.] This 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 (1 Corinthians 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 Timothy 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). [Note: See Sydney H. T. Page, "Satan: God’s Servant," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:3 (September 2007):449-65.]

A variation of this view is that the delivery to Satan would eventuate in a wasting physical illness but not death. [Note: William Barclay, By What Authority? p. 118; M. Dods, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 118; H. Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 90; H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 471; W. G. H. Simon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Introduction and Commentary, p. 78; and M. E. Thrall, The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 40.] However 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. [Note: F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 123; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 217; J. J. Lias, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 67; and G. Campbell Morgan, The Corinthian Letters of Paul, p. 83.] The 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. [Note: B. Campbell, "Flesh and Spirit in 1 Corinthians 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):341; K. P. Donfried, "Justification and Last Judgment in Paul," Interpretation 30 (April 1976):150-51; H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 134-135, n. 50; and the early church father Tertullian.] Paul 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. [Note: Fee, The First . . ., pp. 208-15; Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 50; Robertson, 4:113.] In this view Paul meant that he was turning the man over to live in the sphere of Satan’s authority, the world, from the sphere of the Spirit’s authority, the church.

"What the grammar suggests . . . is that the ’destruction of his flesh’ is the anticipated result [Gr. eis] of the man’s being being [sic] put back out into Satan’s domain, while the express purpose [Gr. hina] of the action is his redemption." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 209. See also Craig L. Blomberg’s discussion of this verse in William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar: Second Edition, p. 54.]

I think Paul meant excommunication with the possibility of premature death. [Note: Cf. Lowery, p. 514.] His analogy concerning the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8) stresses separating what is sinful from what it pollutes. Paul meant that the Lamb was already slain on Calvary, but the Corinthians had not yet gotten rid of the leaven.

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 some interpreters 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). I think modern church leaders can turn people over to Satan by removing them from the fellowship of other Christians and the church. People may commit sins that may ultimately lead to their premature deaths today, and there are, of course, other biblical examples of excommunication as church discipline (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:13; Matthew 18:17; 2 Corinthians 2:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).

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 Corinthians 1:8).

From what would his punishment save the incestuous man’s spirit? It would not save him eternally since faith in Christ does that. It might save him from physical death if he repented, but the reference to his spirit makes this interpretation unlikely. Probably it would guard 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 that 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. [Note: Bruce, p. 54.]