1 Corinthians Chapter 5

Confronting Immorality in the Church

A. The Problem is Addressed

1. The Sin of an Unnamed Christian in Corinth

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!” (1 Corinthians 5:1, NKJV).

Paul begins this chapter with a shocking rebuke. The phrase “It is actually reported” indicates that this sin was not hidden or whispered about, but openly known and spoken of. Even in a city like Corinth, notorious for its corruption, the actions of this man had become scandalous. The issue was not merely the presence of sin but the church’s tolerance of it.

The word translated “sexual immorality” is the Greek term porneia. Originally, porneia referred to sexual relations with prostitutes, but by the time of the New Testament it had broadened to encompass all sexual activity outside of marriage, including fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest, and other perversions. The Jewish community, long before the New Testament era, used the word in this expanded sense, and the apostles consistently employed it to describe any sexual activity outside the covenant of biblical marriage. As Matthew Poole observed, “The Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures.” Adam Clarke likewise affirmed that it “must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity.” Thus, Paul is not addressing one narrow sin but calling out the broader rebellion against God’s design for sexuality.

What made this case especially grievous was its nature: “that a man has his father’s wife.” The language indicates an ongoing relationship rather than a single lapse. The verb “to have” is a euphemism, commonly used to describe a settled sexual union. This was not a passing fling or one-time mistake but an enduring, unrepentant relationship. The woman is not called the man’s mother but “his father’s wife,” making her most likely his stepmother. Nothing in the passage suggests she was a believer, for Paul addresses the man directly and not the woman.

Paul emphasizes the scandal by adding, “and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles.” Corinth was a cesspool of vice, famous throughout the Roman world for its temple prostitution and gross immorality. Yet even among the pagans, this kind of incestuous relationship was considered taboo. Cicero, the Roman statesman, described such acts as a crime almost unheard of among civilized people. Roman law and Jewish law alike condemned it. God’s Word is explicit: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8, NKJV). Again, “A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor uncover his father’s bed” (Deuteronomy 22:30, NKJV). And further, “Cursed is the one who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s bed.” And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ (Deuteronomy 27:20, NKJV).

Thus, the offense carried a double weight of condemnation. It was condemned in God’s Law and it was despised even by the surrounding culture. Yet shockingly, the Corinthian church did not mourn this sin or act to remove it from their fellowship. They tolerated what even the world rejected. This failure to confront sin revealed not only the corruption of one man but the spiritual blindness and pride of an entire congregation.

2. The Reaction of the Corinthian Church to the Sin

“And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:2, NKJV).

Paul moves from exposing the shocking immorality in the church to exposing an even greater scandal: the reaction of the congregation. The sin itself was grievous, but the church’s attitude toward it was worse. They were not broken-hearted, not humbled before God, not trembling at His Word, but puffed up. Instead of mourning, they tolerated, perhaps even celebrated, their “open-mindedness.”

Paul had already identified their pride earlier in this letter, warning against being “puffed up” with arrogance and human wisdom (1 Corinthians 4:6, 18–19). Here the same sin shows itself again, but this time in their response to immorality. Pride is the root that leads to a calloused heart. A church that does not think rightly about God will inevitably live wrongly before Him. Their doctrinal confusion regarding God’s wisdom and the cross (chapters 1–4) was now bearing rotten fruit in their moral conduct (chapter 5). Sound doctrine and holy living are inseparably tied together.

Instead of being puffed up, Paul says they should have “mourned.” The Greek verb carries the sense of deep grief, the kind of sorrow one would express at the death of a loved one. The church ought to have lamented the defilement of Christ’s name, the ruin of this man’s testimony, and the stumbling block set before the world. Sin tolerated in the church should cause weeping, not boasting. James writes, “Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom” (James 4:9, NKJV). Likewise, Jesus declared, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4, NKJV). A church that tolerates sin without tears reveals a dangerous spiritual apathy.

Paul continues, “that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.” The apostle calls for decisive discipline. The unrepentant offender should not be left in the protection of Christian fellowship but removed from it. Church discipline is not vindictive; it is protective and restorative. The purpose is to guard the purity of Christ’s body and to awaken the sinner to repentance. Paul will explain this more fully in verses 4–5, but already he makes it clear that inaction is not an option.

Why, then, did the Corinthians fail to act? Several cultural and theological factors likely contributed:

1. The Immorality of Corinthian Culture: Corinth was infamous for sexual indulgence. Pagan religion often celebrated immorality in temple rituals. It was entirely possible for a Corinthian to think one could be “spiritual” and still live any way they pleased sexually. A well-known Greek proverb even rationalized immorality: “Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body, but wives to bear us legitimate children.” This mentality easily seeped into the church.

2. Misuse of Jewish Teaching: Though the Old Testament was crystal clear—“The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8, NKJV)—some rabbis distorted the law. Rabbi Akibah, for instance, taught that such a relationship might be permissible for Gentile converts, reasoning that their past familial ties were erased by conversion. Though false, such rationalizations may have influenced the Corinthians.

3. Pride in False Tolerance: Most likely, the Corinthians prided themselves on their “tolerance.” They may have boasted, “Look how loving and gracious we are! We accept this brother as he is.” In reality, their “love” was cruelty, for it allowed a man to continue in destructive sin. Their tolerance was not love but cowardice dressed up as virtue. Paul strips away this mask and shows it for what it is—arrogance against God.

Thus, their glorying was misplaced. They should have been grieved. They should have felt the weight of shame, the offense to Christ’s holiness, and the danger to the sinner’s soul. Instead, they took pride in what ought to have broken their hearts.

3. Paul’s Prescription

“For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1 Corinthians 5:3–5, NKJV).

Paul now lays out his apostolic prescription for how the church must respond. Though he was absent in body, he declares that he is present in spirit. By this, Paul does not mean mystical astral projection but that his written letter carries the full weight of his spiritual authority as Christ’s apostle. His instructions were as binding as if he were standing physically in their midst. Thus, he reminds them that distance does not lessen the responsibility of the church to obey nor his authority to direct them in Christ’s name.

Paul says he has already judged the man who has committed this sin. Some might protest, recalling the words of Jesus, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1, NKJV). Yet Paul is not guilty of hypocritical judgment, for he applies the same standard to himself as to others. Christ forbade judgment that is self-righteous, inconsistent, or blind to one’s own sins. But righteous judgment, which is consistent with God’s Word and aims at restoration, is commanded. Jesus Himself declared, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24, NKJV). Paul is not overstepping; he is exercising godly discernment in the role Christ appointed him to.

His prescription is severe: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan.” The church, gathered in Christ’s name and with Paul’s spiritual endorsement, must act corporately. Discipline is not the decision of one leader acting in isolation but the unified act of the assembled body. To deliver someone to Satan is to remove them from the fellowship and protective covering of the church, casting them back into the realm where Satan exercises sway. The church cannot directly control Satan, but by putting someone outside the community of believers, they hand him back to the world, which is the devil’s domain (cf. 1 John 5:19).

This discipline is not vindictive but redemptive. Paul explains the goal: “for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The word “flesh” here does not mean the physical body but the sinful impulses of fallen human nature. This man had given himself over to carnality, and only severe consequences could bring him to repentance. By removing the false comfort of church fellowship, he would be forced to face the full weight of his sin and its bitter fruit. This is in line with Galatians 5:24: “And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (NKJV). Sometimes God allows the believer to reap the painful results of sin so that the sinful desire is destroyed, and the person is brought to brokenness and repentance.

Importantly, Paul’s words were never meant to justify cruelty or physical harm. Tragically, this verse was misused in church history, especially in the Inquisition, to justify torture and execution. But Paul is not commanding bodily destruction—he is commanding the putting off of sinful indulgence by removing the sinner from fellowship until repentance comes. The focus is spiritual, not physical.

The end goal is always restoration: “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Even though this man’s actions were shameful and required decisive discipline, Paul does not consider him hopeless or beyond grace. He is still viewed as a brother whose spirit could yet be preserved for eternal salvation. The day of the Lord Jesus refers to Christ’s return, when all believers will stand before Him. The hope is that through discipline, this man would repent and be found ready for that day.

This principle of restorative discipline is echoed elsewhere in Scripture. Paul writes, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, NKJV). The purpose is never condemnation but correction, never destruction but salvation. Warren Wiersbe summarized it well: “Church discipline is not a group of pious policemen out to catch a criminal. Rather, it is a group of brokenhearted brothers and sisters seeking to restore an erring member of the family.”

Sadly, in today’s culture of church-hopping and shallow commitment, such discipline rarely brings about its intended effect. A person removed from fellowship in one church can simply attend another and continue without repentance, sometimes painting themselves as a victim of an overly harsh congregation. Yet the biblical principle remains. For the good of the church and the good of the sinner, discipline must be carried out when sin is flagrant and unrepented.

B. The Rationale for Purity in the Church

1. A Little Sin Influences the Entire Group

“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” (1 Corinthians 5:6, NKJV).

Paul now shifts from addressing the individual sinner to addressing the entire church body. His concern is not only for the man in immorality but for the congregation that tolerated it. He rebukes them: “Your glorying is not good.” The Corinthian believers were boasting in their tolerance and mistaking it for love, imagining themselves magnanimous for allowing this man to remain in fellowship. But Paul exposes their false reasoning with a simple analogy: sin tolerated in the body of Christ is like leaven in a lump of dough. Just as a little leaven spreads until the entire batch is permeated, so unchecked sin infiltrates and corrupts the entire church.

The imagery of leaven was powerful and familiar in Jewish thought. Unlike modern yeast packets, leaven in the ancient world was a small piece of fermented dough from the previous batch, kneaded into the new one to cause fermentation. This process made the bread rise, but it also served as a picture of corruption and decay. The fermentation spreads silently and invisibly until the whole lump is affected. Paul seizes upon this well-known picture to show that a single tolerated sin, if left unaddressed, can spread its influence throughout the entire congregation.

This principle was also illustrated every year in Israel’s observance of Passover. The Lord commanded them: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus 12:15, NKJV). Leaven was purged completely from their homes, symbolizing the removal of sin from their lives and community. The Passover cleansing was not merely ritual but practical. Since leaven was kept from batch to batch, harmful bacteria could build up. Purging it once a year ensured both ceremonial purity and physical health. Thus, God wove into Israel’s law both a picture of holiness and a safeguard for their wellbeing.

The lesson is unmistakable: a congregation that tolerates sin will soon be infected by it. One person’s compromise, left unchecked, breeds indifference and hardness of heart in others. Paul is therefore more concerned with the sin of the entire church than even with the immorality of the individual man. While the man’s actions were shocking, the congregation’s pride in ignoring it was worse. It was as if they were boasting about being compassionate while actually endangering the entire body of Christ.

Just as cancer spreads silently through the body if not removed, so sin, if ignored, spreads through the church. True love for Christ’s body does not mean tolerating what destroys it. To wink at sin is not kindness but cruelty, for it leaves the infection to grow until the whole body suffers.

2. We Are to Live a Perpetual Passover Feast

“Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:7–8, NKJV).

Paul now deepens the imagery of leaven, connecting it to Israel’s Passover. At the first Passover, the Lord commanded Israel: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus 12:15, NKJV). During this feast, every trace of leaven had to be searched out and removed, symbolizing both separation from Egypt and devotion to God. Paul uses this background to call the church to holiness: just as Israel purged out leaven, so the church must purge out unrepentant sin.

The exhortation is strong: “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.” The church’s identity in Christ demands a holy lifestyle. Just as unleavened bread represented purity and separation, believers are to live consistently with what Christ has made them. Paul’s reasoning is theological: be what you are. In Christ, the believer has been cleansed, redeemed, and set apart, so continuing in tolerated sin contradicts one’s true nature. As Charles Spurgeon rightly observed, “Salvation in sin is not possible; it must always be salvation from sin.”

Paul then makes the great Christological connection: “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.” This is one of the clearest statements in Scripture identifying Jesus with the Passover lamb. Just as the lamb’s blood on Israel’s doorposts caused the angel of death to pass over them in Egypt (Exodus 12:13), so the blood of Christ causes God’s wrath to pass over those who are in Him. John the Baptist proclaimed this same truth when he said of Jesus, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, NKJV). Peter later echoed it: “knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold… but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19, NKJV).

Because Christ is our Passover, Paul says, “Therefore let us keep the feast.” This does not mean that Christians are to literally celebrate the Jewish Passover, but that the entire Christian life is a perpetual Passover feast. Just as Israel remembered their deliverance from Egypt through the Passover, so believers are to live daily in remembrance of the cross, in purity, gratitude, and joy.

Paul specifies what this feast looks like: “not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The “old leaven” refers to the former way of life—corruption, pride, lust, and rebellion. The “new lump” is a church and an individual life characterized by holiness in Christ. Malice and wickedness are contrasted with sincerity and truth, which serve as two guardrails for the believer’s conduct. Sincerity speaks of purity of motive, without hypocrisy. Truth speaks of alignment with God’s Word, without deception. Together, they describe a life of transparent devotion to Christ.

Thus, Paul’s call is not simply to remove one immoral man but to embrace an ongoing posture of holiness. The church must live as if every day were Passover, continually purging sin, rejoicing in redemption, and feeding on the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

C. The Principle of Christian Separation

1. Paul Told Them, in a Previous Letter, to Avoid Sexually Immoral (Porneia) People

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.” (1 Corinthians 5:9, NKJV).

Paul reminds the Corinthians that this instruction is not new. He had previously written to them about avoiding close fellowship with the sexually immoral. That earlier letter has not been preserved by the Spirit, for it was written for that specific congregation and not intended as Scripture for the whole church in every age. We know from this reference that the apostles wrote many letters, but the Spirit chose only those that were inspired and necessary for the canon of Scripture to be preserved for all generations.

Paul’s command is clear: believers must not “keep company” with the immoral. The phrase literally means “to mix up together,” to associate in an ongoing, close, and familiar way. He does not mean casual contact, but intimate, relational mingling that communicates acceptance and partnership. To maintain such fellowship with unrepentant sinners who claim the name of Christ is to blur the line between holiness and sin, and to cheapen the blood of Christ.

2. Paul Clarifies the Principle of Separation

“Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’” (1 Corinthians 5:10–13, NKJV).

Paul immediately clarifies his meaning. He does not expect believers to withdraw from all sinners in the world, for to do so would require them “to go out of the world.” In other words, separation does not mean monastic withdrawal. This was precisely the error of the monastic movements of later centuries, where men and women fled to caves, deserts, and monasteries in an effort to escape the contamination of the world. Paul insists that such withdrawal is impossible and contrary to the mission of the church. Jesus Himself prayed to the Father concerning His disciples: “I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15, NKJV).

Instead, Paul’s concern is with “anyone named a brother.” If someone professes Christ yet persists in gross sin—whether sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, or extortion—the church must not maintain fellowship with him. The list of sins Paul provides is comprehensive, covering lust, greed, false worship, abusive speech, addiction, and exploitation. Such patterns of life are incompatible with a true Christian profession. To share even the common table of fellowship with such a person would be to give public approval to their sin. In Paul’s culture, eating together was not merely social but covenantal; to eat with someone was to identify with them as a partner and friend. Therefore, Paul’s command is radical: do not even eat with such a person.

Paul then establishes a vital principle: “For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges.” Christians are not called to pass judgment on unbelievers for living like unbelievers. The world is guilty before God already, and He alone will judge them. But inside the church, judgment must be exercised. The Corinthians were doing the opposite—they excused and even celebrated sin inside while likely condemning sin outside. Paul reverses this. He insists that holiness begins in the household of God. Peter echoes this truth: “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17, NKJV).

Finally, Paul concludes with a direct quotation from the Old Testament: “Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person.” This echoes repeated instructions from the Law of Moses, such as “Therefore you shall put away the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 17:7, NKJV). Just as Israel was commanded to purge evil from its midst, so the church must remove unrepentant sin to preserve its witness and purity. The discipline is for two reasons: the salvation of the sinner (1 Corinthians 5:5) and the protection of the church from corruption (1 Corinthians 5:6). Both motives reflect love—love for Christ’s honor, love for the purity of the church, and love for the soul of the sinner who must be awakened to repentance.