What does it mean for the flesh to be destroyed and the spirit saved?

Explanation:

When Paul states that the church at Corinth should hand the sinful man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, it is not clear what Paul means. Interestingly, Paul uses a similar phrase in 1 Timothy 1, where he explains to Timothy that he handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan. In the case of 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul says that the reason he handed these men over to Satan is not for the destruction of the flesh in order that the spirit might be saved, but so that they might learn not to blaspheme. Paul seems to be saying that he excluded Hymenaeus and Alexander so that they would learn to live in the right way. Presumably once they learned to live in the right way, they would be welcomed back by Paul. If we assume that Paul uses the expression deliver to Satan similarly in both instances, we can assume his purpose for the man at Corinth is the same as for Hymenaeus and Alexander.⁶ That is, by being expelled from the community, the sinful man at Corinth will learn repentance and so be saved.

Counterargument:

It is possible that when Paul uses the phrase deliver to Satan in 1 Timothy 1:20, the purpose is for Hymenaeus and Alexander to repent. Still, Paul does not state this specifically. Rather, Paul simply states that he hands the men over to Satan in order that they might learn not to blaspheme. We know from Revelation that when Jesus returns, everyone will be frightened by the coming wrath of the Lamb (Revelation 6:15–17). Whether or not Paul desires Hymenaeus and Alexander to repent is not clear; regardless, there is a sense in which, on the day of the Lord, Hymenaeus and Alexander will have learned not to blaspheme.

Response to counterargument:

Such an understanding of why Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan in 1 Timothy 1:20 will not stand. This is because Paul shows great concern for the well-being of his parishioners, and it is hard to see how he could be so callous and not care for the repentance and restoration of his brothers. Evidence of Paul’s care for the restoration of sinful believers comes especially by way of 2 Corinthians 2:6–11.⁷ There, Paul speaks about a believer who has been punished by the majority, and Paul exhorts the church to forgive and comfort the man so that he would not be overwhelmed by sorrow (2 Corinthians 2:6–7). Clearly Paul is deeply interested in the exclusion of believers for the sake of restoration.

Explanation:

It is customary for Paul to write about the flesh and the spirit, and contrast the two. Flesh tends to be a reference to the sinful nature of the human. Unless that sinful nature is crucified, a person cannot be saved (Galatians 5:24). At the same time, if one puts aside the flesh, one lives by the Spirit (Romans 7:5–6), the opposite of the flesh (Galatians 5:17), and those who live by the Spirit will be saved. When Paul refers to the flesh and the spirit he is referring to the whole person, viewed from different angles: the person living by the flesh is moving away from God, while the person living by the Spirit is moving toward God.⁸ When we keep in mind Paul’s general usage of contrasting flesh and spirit, it is most likely that Paul uses flesh to connote the sinful man in relation to his sexual sin, and the term spirit to denote the regenerate man in relation to the work of the Spirit.

Counterargument:

It is possible that when Paul uses the terms flesh and spirit in 1 Corinthians 5:5 he means to use them in a corporate sense. We know that Paul is aggravated with the church at Corinth for being arrogant (1 Corinthians 5:2). Further we know from Paul’s other letters that God uses the Spirit to seal the church and guarantee salvation (2 Corinthians 1:22). Therefore, it is entirely possible that when Paul uses flesh and spirit in this context, he means it in a corporate sense. If Paul means it in a corporate sense, he is referring not to the destruction of the man’s flesh but to the church. The church will be cleansed once the man is removed, and the Spirit who preserves the church will be saved from leaving.⁹

Response to counterargument:

Such an understanding of the flesh and spirit goes against the grammar. The construction of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is composed of three clauses. The final purpose clause reveals that the purpose of handing the man over to Satan is so that the spirit may be saved (σωθῇ) in the day of the Lord. Paul uses the verb σῴζω (to save) eight times in 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 3:15; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 7:16; 1 Corinthians 9:22; 1 Corinthians 10:33; 1 Corinthians 15:2), and in each case he uses it to refer to the salvation of a person.¹⁰ Clearly the Holy Spirit does not require salvation, because the Holy Spirit is God, and seals people for salvation. So, when Paul says that he hands the man over in order that the spirit might be saved, he most likely uses the term in his customary sense, which is to denote someone who is moving toward rather than away from God.

Explanation:

An analysis of the Greek grammar and syntax suggests that Paul wants the man handed over to Satan so that he will repent and be saved.¹¹ 1 Corinthians 5:5 is composed of two clauses. First, we have the primary clause with the verb to deliver. The clause states, You are to deliver this man to Satan. This is followed by a prepositional phrase that reveals the result of handing the man over the Satan: for the destruction of the flesh. Then there is the second clause, which reveals the purpose of the controlling verb to deliver. The purpose of handing the man over to Satan (which will result in the destruction of the flesh), is so that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.¹²

Counterargument:

This analysis of the Greek is fine, as far as it goes, the only problem is that is fails to note that there is no possessive pronoun to modify flesh or spirit. In other words, there is no way to know whose flesh and spirit Paul refers to. Is he referring to the man, the church, or the man and the church? (See Interpretation 2, argument a.)

Response to counterargument:

When there is an article present, the possessive pronoun is not necessary to denote possession.¹³ Rather, one can simply infer from context whether possession is implied. In the case of 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul does not use any possessive pronoun (his) to modify flesh or spirit, but he does not have to because the article is present, and possession is implied. We know from the controlling verb that the sinful man is being handed over to Satan, so we should assume that the prepositional phrase and purpose clause clarify the primary clause and the controlling verb. Why should the Corinthians hand the man over to Satan? For the destruction of his flesh and the saving of his soul. Unless Paul specifies this, it is strange to think that the church could hand the man over for the destruction of someone else’s flesh and the saving of someone else’s spirit.

Possible weakness:

The weakness of this view is that it seems to run counter to the plain meaning of the phrase hand over to Satan for destruction. The notion of handing someone over to Satan for destruction, when taken in a wooden sense, surely implies death. Further, how does it make sense to suggest that handing one to Satan could result in the spirit being saved? Does not Satan cultivate sin?¹⁴ Of course, thinking that Paul wants the church to literally hand the sinful man to Satan to be killed has its own challenges because it does not square with Paul’s broader theology. Once properly understood, the notion that Paul uses a figure of speech to encourage excommunication is highly plausible.

Explanation:

The grammar of 1 Corinthians 5:5 suggests that Paul is talking about both the church at Corinth and the sinful man. This can be deduced by the missing possessive pronouns that one might expect to modify flesh and spirit.¹⁸ Instead, all we find is that the man is to be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit might be saved. The fact that the possessive pronoun is missing from both clauses leaves open the possibility that Paul is referring to the flesh and spirit of the community of the church. At the same time, we know that Paul cares deeply for the spiritual well-being of specific members (2 Corinthians 2:6–11). For these reasons we should think that Paul refers to both the community of believers and the sinful man.

Counterargument:

According to standard Greek grammar, when the article is present, and the possession is implied by the context, there is no reason to include the possessive pronoun (see Interpretation 1, argument c), response to counterargument). Further, it is hard to see what it could possibly mean for Paul to hand the man over for the destruction of the community’s flesh.

Explanation:

The context surrounding 1 Corinthians 5:5 suggests that Paul is concerned over the purity of the church. Paul notes that the church is boasting (1 Corinthians 5:2) and their boasting is not good (1 Corinthians 5:6). He follows this up with the admonition that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. He then explains that the church must be cleansed of the old leaven so that the church may be a new leaven (1 Corinthians 5:7). All of this alludes to the fact that Paul is concerned for the spiritual health of the church. That is why, when Paul says they should hand the man over to Satan for destruction, this includes not only the man’s carnal self but also the church’s arrogance.¹⁹

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is twofold. First, it is entirely possible that Paul not only wants to teach the Corinthian church that excommunication is necessary in order to keep the church pure (1 Corinthians 5:6–7), but also that excommunication could lead the man to repentance. In other words, Paul explains that the purpose of excommunication is both for the destruction of the sinner’s flesh, which might lead to his salvation, and to keep the church pure. For if the church is not kept pure, how many other members will start to participate in wilful sin?

Second, when Paul explains that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, he follows this up with the exhortation to remove the wicked man (1 Corinthians 5:13). His point is not that the church has become soiled by the man and therefore the flesh of the church needs to be destroyed, but that the man will cause other people to sin, and therefore they should drive him out of the congregation before that happens.

Possible weakness:

The problem with this view is that it tries to resolve some ambiguity by adding complexity that may not be present. Paul seems to be using a figure of speech to refer to excommunication, but because of his unique language, this is not self-evident. The plainest meaning of the clause is that the church is to hand the man over to Satan for death. The problem is that this runs counter to Paul’s overall theology (and the theology of the New Testament). This view tries to resolve the issue by suggesting that Paul is not talking about the man at all, but rather the church, and so it must be a figure of speech. Of course, Paul also cares about the spiritual health of the man being excommunicated so Paul must be referencing both parties. Such an interpretation is strained and complicated, and can hardly do justice to the notion that the purpose of excommunicating the man is to save the spirit.

Explanation:

Paul is familiar with the Old Testament laws, and when he hears that there is a man in the Corinthian church living in egregious sin, Deuteronomy 17:2–7 comes to mind. There we find the command that if someone has done an abominable thing and two or three witnesses come forward against that person, the person is to be executed. During the era of Second Temple Judaism, the execution was exchanged with excommunication.²⁰ Still, executing the man could very well lead to his death, but this is not Paul’s concern. Paul’s concern is for the health of the church. He exhorts the church to hand the man over to destruction so that the community might continue to live under the power of the Spirit and be preserved until the day of the Lord.²¹

Counterargument:

This interpretation is possible, but not plausible. The only reason to accept this interpretation is if one thinks that hand over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh means physical death. When one takes Paul to mean physical death, the purpose clause, which explains that the purpose for handing the man over to Satan is to save the spirit, no longer makes sense because the man is dead. To solve this problem, one argues that when Paul mentions the destruction of the flesh, he refers to the man, while so that the spirit might be saved refers to the church. First, it is not clear that Paul wants the man handed over to Satan for physical death. Second, when Paul uses the same phrase in 1 Timothy 1:20 he means something like exclusion for the sake of repentance. Further, it is not clear that Paul refers to the spirit of the church on any other occasion, while he often refers to the spiritual man (Galatians 5:17; Romans 8:1–4).

Possible weakness:

The notion that a man’s flesh being destroyed would save the spirit of a church is not a familiar Pauline concept. On the other hand, the notion that a man’s flesh would be destroyed in order to save the man’s spirit is fairly common.