What does it mean that the man should be delivered to Satan?

It has become known that someone in the church at Corinth is having sexual relations with his father’s wife. This is a serious sin, even by pagan standards (1 Corinthians 5:1). While we might expect Paul to address the man who has sinned directly, instead, he addresses the whole congregation. By doing this, we infer that Paul is intent not on condemning the sinful man (although the man will suffer condemnation), but on teaching the church how to handle egregious acts of unrepentant sin.⁶ When Paul states that the church should deliver this man to Satan, he uses the demonstrative pronoun τοιοῦτος as the direct object of the verb to deliver. The demonstrative can be translated such as this or of such a kind. In other words, Paul is pointing out that not only should the specific man be delivered to Satan, but also should the ones who are of such a kind, that is, who act similarly, including this man. Further, in 1 Corinthians 5:6–7 Paul clearly explains that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and exhorts the Corinthians to cleanse the old leaven that they may be a new lump. While Paul’s exhortation will result in the man’s punishment, Paul’s priority seems to be on teaching the church to exclude such unrepentant sinners, and not simply punishing the man.⁷

Counterargument:

When Paul states that the Corinthians should deliver the man to Satan, the clause is modified by the prepositional phrase for the destruction of the flesh. It is important to note that Paul does not simply instruct the Corinthians to eject the man from the assembly, but he also explains that the purpose of such ejection is for the destruction of the man’s flesh. The term ὄλεθρος (destruction) is only used four times in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 6:9). If we exclude 1 Corinthians 5:5, all three cases either certainly (2 Thessalonians 1:9) or almost certainly (1 Thessalonians 5:3; 1 Timothy 6:9) refer to eternal destruction. With this in mind, it seems that Paul is not only telling the congregation how to treat the unrepentant sinner, but he is literally condemning the man to eternal destruction.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that when Paul uses the term ὄλεθρος (destructive) it normally has to do with eternal destruction, Paul will sometimes use harsh terms metaphorically. This is especially the case in relation to the term flesh.⁸ For example, in Romans 8:13 Paul states that if one lives by the flesh one will die, but if by the Spirit one puts to death the deeds of the body, one will live. Clearly, Paul does not literally mean put to death in Romans 8:13, although this is a strong term.⁹ Similarly, in Galatians 5:24, Paul writes that those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh.¹⁰ In both cases, Paul uses a harsh term metaphorically. We can infer that destruction of the flesh might not literally mean condemned to eternal destruction but something like putting off the sinful nature.

Explanation:

One way to see that Paul uses the term deliver to Satan as an expression for exclude from the community of believers is by considering the phrase in light of Old Testament theology.¹¹ In the Old Testament there is a general notion that certain individuals who profane the community of God should be expelled. There were three reasons for the expulsion. First, the offender had disobeyed God’s covenant and showed himself to be disloyal. Such a penalty would deter others from the same poor behaviour.¹² Second, there is in the Old Testament the notion of corporate responsibility, which means that when one person in Israel sinned, the whole community came under God’s punishment.¹³ Third, God is holy, which meant that his people should also be holy. Allowing sin to go on would profane the camp.¹⁴ Paul, being aware of Old Testament theology, sees that the same pattern applies to the church. So, he instructs the Corinthians to expel the unrepentant sinner from the body of believers, leaving him to the vulnerable forces of the world.

Counterargument:

If Paul is leaning on Old Testament theology when he exhorts the Corinthians to expel the unrepentant sinner, then we have good reason to think that when the man is delivered to Satan, he is literally destroyed. In other words, to be handed over to Satan is not just an expression but denotes a literal punishment. We can make this connection by reflecting on Joshua 7.

As Joshua leads the people toward Canaan, Achan disobeys God by taking loot from the enemy camp at Ai (Joshua 7:1). Achan’s sin brings judgment upon all of Israel as the camp experiences corporate solidarity (Joshua 7:11–12). God has Joshua cast lots so that they will discover who disobeyed God, and when Achan is identified as the guilt party, he is stoned and burned with fire (Joshua 7:14–15, Joshua 7:25). Corporate solidarity has to do not only with excluding the unrepentant sinner from the church but also with handing him over to Satan for the punishment of destruction.

Reply to counterargument:

There is some evidence that after the Jews returned from being exiled in Babylon they moved away from execution and instead, adopted excommunication.^15,16 If this is the case, then it is more likely that Paul is using a figure of speech to denote exclusion from the community and not literal destruction at the hands of Satan.

Explanation:

1 Corinthians 5:5 is not the only occasion when Paul uses the phrase deliver to Satan. In fact, we find the identical expression in 1 Timothy 1, where Paul instructs Timothy to hold good faith and a good conscience (1 Timothy 1:18–19).^17,18,19 Paul notes that by rejecting such advice, Hymenaeus and Alexander have shipwrecked their faith and so Paul delivered them to Satan (1 Timothy 1:19–20). Paul states that he did this so that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:20). This example is helpful because Paul offers a reason for why he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, which is so they would learn not to blaspheme. In other words, Paul is hopeful that by excluding these men from the care of the church, they would enter the hostile world, which is governed by Satan, and through whatever affliction they endure in the world, they would learn repentance.

Counterargument:

It is the case that Paul uses the same term in 1 Timothy 1:20 when he says that he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan. Still, 1 Corinthians was likely written before 1 Timothy, which means that we cannot understand Paul’s usage of the phrase in 1 Corinthians 5:5 based on his use in 1 Timothy 1:20. Rather, we should understand Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 1:20 in light of 1 Corinthians 5:5. In the case of 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul writes that the Corinthians are to hand the man over for the destruction of the flesh. In other words, the man is to be handed over so that Satan can kill him. When seen in this light, we can infer that Hymenaeus and Alexander were also likely handed over for death.

Response to counterargument:

This argument will not do. First, if there is ambiguity, we are free to interpret an older usage of a phrase in light of a contemporary use of the same phrase. It is entirely possible for an author to use a phrase in a manner that is not quite clear from the context, even if the author’s intention is clear. And then it is entirely possible for that same author to use the same term in a context that clearly draws out the meaning of the term. When this happens, we are free to go back to the first usage to see if the new interpretation fits in the older context. And if it does, we should assume that the contemporary usage might be how the author intended the same phrase in the older usage. As it turns out, there is ambiguity with Paul’s usage in 1 Corinthians 5:5, so we should turn to 1 Timothy 1:20 to refine our understanding.

Not only that, but even if we take Paul’s phrase to mean deliver to Satan for death in 1 Corinthians 5:5, this meaning does not square with 1 Timothy 1:20. There Paul states that he handed them over to Satan so they would learn not to blaspheme. It hardly makes sense for Paul to say that these men were handed over to learn a lesson, if the result of that lesson is imminent death. On the other hand, if Paul uses the phrase as an expression to suggest exclusion from the community, this fits with both 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Timothy 1:20.

Explanation: In the book of Job, Job is handed over to Satan and the suffering he endures leads to a good result.^20,21,22 In the Septuagint we find the same verb for to deliver, to express that God hands Job over to the devil (Job 2:6). There is a possibility that Paul has in his mind, based on Job, the notion that Satan is a vehicle used by God for punishment.²³ The idea is that by excluding the man from the community of believers, the man is consigned to the sphere of Satan, which is the world. The purpose is so that the man will endure suffering which might lead to repentance (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Counterargument:

While there is some parallel between 1 Corinthians 5:5 and the book of Job, there are also differences. For example, in Job 2:6 God does hand Job over to Satan, but he clearly specifies that Satan is to spare his life. This parameter is missing from 1 Corinthians 5:5. Instead of asking that they spare the man’s life, Paul tells the Corinthians to hand him over to Satan specifically to destroy the flesh.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument might have been strong if not for the remainder of 1 Corinthians 5:5. There we find out that the man is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The subordinate clause is a purpose clause introduced by the conjunction (in order that). The clause explains the purpose for which the person is to be delivered to Satan. Of course, if the person is to be handed over to Satan so that his spirit might be saved on the day of the Lord, this implies a moment of repentance. In other words, the purpose in handing the man over to Satan is that he might repent, not to put him to death.

Possible weakness:

This interpretation is fine as far as it goes. The only issue is that the term flesh could mean any number of things, including the physical body as a functioning entity.²⁴ So when Paul writes that he wants the Corinthians to hand the man over for the destruction of the flesh, the most intuitive way to take flesh is as physical body. That’s because Satan is the one who destroys, and it makes sense to think that the functioning body is destroyed by Satan. Still, Paul is flexible when he uses the term flesh, and seems to mean something like the movement away from God when he contrasts it with spirit.²⁵

Explanation:

When Paul says that the congregation should hand the man over to Satan, he explains that the purpose is for the destruction of the flesh. Destruction of the flesh implies physical death, so there is no better way to understand the phrase than that the man would be put to death. The notion that the community would hand the man over to death fits with the ancient context and Jewish tradition, which were accustomed to pronouncing harsh curses.²⁷

Counterargument:

This view creates a problem for itself. It argues for the plain reading of the text, but the plain reading is ambiguous. If Paul wrote that the man should be handed over to Satan to be put to death, one could argue that the plain reading of the text suggests that the man be put to death. Of course, this is not what Paul says. Rather, Paul says that the man should be handed over for the destruction of the flesh. The purpose of our exercise is to determine what such a statement could mean, so we cannot assume a meaning but have to argue for one. Since flesh is used by Paul to denote the sinful flesh, and the physical body, we have to consider the broader context to refine the meaning. When we do this, we find that Paul is exhorting the church to practice excommunication when members live in egregious unrepentant sin (1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Corinthians 5:13). Added to this, the subordinate so that clause states that the purpose of handing the man over to the flesh is to save his spirit. It is hard to see how execution could save the man’s spirit. Finally, there is no other place in Scripture where Paul calls for execution, a call that seems at odds with Paul’s broader theology.

Possible weakness:

The weakness of this view is that it runs counter to the broader theology of the New Testament. Nowhere does any New Testament writer call for the execution of a church member. One might counter this rebuttal by saying that Paul does not directly condemn the man to die, but that by leaving the man in his sin, he will physically die. Of course, this would be to concede to Interpretation 1, which holds that Paul is calling for excommunication. While excommunication may result in physical death because of foolish living, consigning someone to excommunication is not the same as consigning one to death.