SERMON: “Immorality and Church Discipline, Part 1” (1 Cor. 5:1–5)
“Immorality
and Church Discipline, Part 1”
(1 Cor. 5:1–5)
Series: “1 Cor: Holiness from Messes” #17 Text: 1
Corinthians 5:1–5
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: February
1, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
I.
Introduction
There are so many temptations for immorality today that were
never present before. Gone are the days
where godly Christians would only need to avoid certain magazines or
storefronts; technology brings access to inappropriate images, stories, and
groups through our screens. Schools
celebrate and even catechize our children in certain kinds of sexual immorality,
calling on students to make flags and learn what we used to call “alternative
lifestyles.” Christian parents must be
so much more careful these days, exercising vigilance not only for the sake of
their own souls, but also for their children’s care.
Still, no matter how bad our society’s morality becomes, it
seems like there are still lines people refuse to cross. That was the case in the first century world;
the Corinthian culture was permissive when it came to immorality (as was the
wider Graeco-Roman world), but even then, there was a line. That’s what made the situation in the Christian
church of Corinth so shocking — someone claiming to be a Christian crossed that
line.
Surprisingly, Paul condemns the church as a whole for this. He could have rebuked the one person who
committed the offense. Yet, he condemns the
whole church as having responsibility to bear. They tolerated sin rather than calling it out,
refusing to practice church discipline. They
didn’t seem to have any reverence for the holiness of God in their gatherings,
and Paul finds this reprehensible.[1]
With these two issues to understand, we’re going to take two
Sundays to understand chapter five. For
today, we will zero in on Paul’s apostolic corrective in the first five verses. First, a church that allows unrepentant sin
deserves rebuke (vv. 1–2). Second, a
church with such sin must discipline redemptively (vv. 3–5). Let’s consider the first point as we consider
the importance of God’s holiness in our midst.
II.
First, a Church that Allows Unrepentant Sin Deserves
Rebuke (vv. 1–2)
It is actually
reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of
such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his
father’s wife. And you have become
puffed up and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed
would be removed from your midst.
Paul turns now to his astonishing news. The first four chapters dealt with the
division in the church that stems from the lack of Christ-centered focus. Now that he’s moved from the philosophy that
should guide them moving forward, he turns to the more practical issues
plaguing the church, and this is the one that tops the list. It’s apparent that he finds this one the most
disturbing.[2]
The phrase translated “it is actually reported” indicates
that this matter was open knowledge. It’s
uncertain whether Paul means that the whole church knows it or that also the lost
Corinthians know it, but it was not a private struggle known only to a few. The reputation of the church was at stake. As Matthew Henry notes, “We should walk
circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened
against us if we fall into any scandalous practice.”[3] It’s true that even the purest churches can
contain a mixture of sin,[4] but public sin is a corporate
issue that all Christians must address.
Paul identifies the sin by twice using the word porneia,
a comprehensive term for “sexual immorality.”
This is the word from which we derive the English term “pornography.”[5]
It refers to a great many sins, such as fornication,
adultery, prostitution, sexual perversion — anything that violates the seventh
commandment.[6] We can sum these sins up as any sexual
activity outside the sanctity of marriage as God defines it. Since the city of Corinth was host to the temple
of Aphrodite, many unbelievers regularly arrived to engage in cult prostitution
there,[7]
meaning the Corinthian culture was one ripe with immorality.
Yet, this was a sin in the church, and Paul goes further. This is such a kind of sexual immorality “as
does not exist even among the Gentiles.” In other words, this was beyond the pale even
by pagan standards, which should put the Christians in Corinth to shame. What is the specific sin? Paul says, “someone has his father’s wife.”
Now, before we go any further, let’s consider what that
meant. “Father’s wife” does not appear
to mean this is the man’s biological mother, as Paul could have simply used the
Greek word for “mother.” Perhaps his father
is divorced or a widower and is remarried, so this is, in essence, this man’s stepmother. That’s still an incestuous relationship,
though.[8]
Now, Paul doesn’t hint that the man’s father is still in the
picture, as he may be dead or has divorced her.[9] Since men typically picked younger wives
after they lost their first, it’s possible that this woman was close to her
stepson’s age or younger than him.[10] The verb “has” is present tense, indicating that
they have ongoing, immoral relationship tolerated by the Corinthian Christians.
Scripture is clear about such relationships — Leviticus 18
and Deuteronomy 27 describe them as abominations. As such, this act was punishable by death in
the Old Testament (Lev. 18:7, 8, 29; cf. Deut. 22:30). So clear is this directive that Jewish rabbinic
literature affirms stoning such individuals, and Josephus called incest “the
grossest of sins” and “an outrageous crime.”[11] They violate God’s created order, dishonor
the family structure, and defile the covenant community. Even John the Baptist rebuked Herod for taking
his brother’s wife, declaring plainly, “It is not lawful for you to have her”
(Mark 6:18). This is why the 2LBCF notes
(25.4.b “Of Marriage”) that such marriages can never be lawful.
Again, the surrounding culture, with as decadent as it was, also
condemned incest. It was considered “criminal
relations” which would have no acquittal.[12] One study says this could result in someone’s
“death or banishment.”[13]
There’s one more question I had when reading this. Why isn’t the woman being brought forward, as
well? Yet, as one commentary notes, she’s
probably not a believer, for Paul says in v. 12, “ For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Are you not to judge those who are within the church?”[14] This makes the relationship even worse (if
that’s possible), for this is an unequally-yoked union, and the “Christian” in
the relationship is being a bad witness of the truth to the woman.
What’s striking here is not merely the presence of the sin,
but the response of the church. Paul
writes, “And you have become puffed up and have not mourned instead, so that
the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.” The Corinthians were “puffed up,” and this
same word has appeared repeatedly in the letter to refer to their arrogance.
This leads us to wonder how they were being proud. I originally thought that their issue is that
they want to be gracious to the sinner, patting themselves on the back for
being so “Christian.” But that doesn’t
make sense.
First, Paul doesn’t deal with issues of Christian liberty
until later. Second, the church at
Corinth was trying to attract the world, so an open relationship in the congregation
that both the Jews and the Greeks would find abhorrent seems
counterproductive. However, one commentary
suggests it’s possible that this man explained that he married her for financial
reasons, to keep his father’s inheritance in the family.[15] The man himself may have been wealthy with
high social status, which gave a note of worldly prestige to their gatherings.[16] Whatever the case, they decided to tolerate open
sin rather than confront it, and that led to their arrogant position on the
matter.
Paul says they should have mourned. He doesn’t refer to embarrassment over bad
publicity! This is a word associated
with grief over sin — both personal and corporate. In the Old Testament, leaders like Ezra and
Nehemiah mourned over the sins of the people as if those sins were their own.[17]
Paul expects the same posture here, for
someone in their church has broken covenant with God and brought unholiness
into their midst.[18]
The purpose of mourning was “so that the one who had done
this deed would be removed from your midst.” Grief over sin should always move
toward repentance and obedience. When it
does not, it is not godly sorrow (cf. 2 Cor 7:8–11).[19]
This exposes a fundamental truth: Churches are corporately
responsible for the sin they tolerate.[20] As one commentator notes, Paul’s response to
the case of incest implies that churches which do not protect the holiness of
God’s people as a group run the risk of forfeiting God’s blessing.”[21] God holds His covenant people accountable not
only for individual holiness, but for communal faithfulness.
Paul’s rebuke is therefore justified. A church that allows open, scandalous sin
without repentance and without discipline does not display grace; it dishonors
Christ. The response must be church
discipline, which brings us to the second point.
III.
Second, a Church with Such Sin Must Discipline Redemptively
(vv. 3–5)
For I, on my part,
though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so
committed this, as though I were present: in the name of our Lord Jesus, when
you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, deliver
such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord.
Having rebuked the church, Paul now instructs them. He makes it clear what he wants to do with
this person. No fewer than six times,
Paul says they need to expel him.[22] This is the final stage of church discipline
that our Lord outlined in Matthew 18, and Paul indicates that this is the Lord’s
will in this case.
Paul does this by appealing to his apostolic authority. First, he notes he’s obviously physically
absent from them, but he says he’s spiritually present. What he means is an debatable point, but he
seems to be indicating pastoral and prophetic involvement. As Christ’s appointed apostle, he can exercise
a “disciplinary power” in the Holy Spirit.[23]
Paul further explains that, just as if he were present, he has
already rendered judgment. It may be
that this case is so obvious that Paul can figure it out from afar. On the other hand, he may be demonstrating
some of his apostolic insight and authority, using the language of the secular
courts here.[24] The sin is blatant, and the church needed to
pass judgment, too. [25] So, in v. 4, Paul says his judgment comes in “in
the name of our Lord Jesus”—that is, under His authority and in submission to
His will.
Therefore, the Corinthian believers are to exercise discipline
when they next assemble for service. It
is to be a public and sober affair. The
discipline isn’t to happen in a back room, where the leaders decide alone and
the person leaves the fellowship, with no one the wiser (literally). Rather, the leaders should call out the sin in
the assembly, and the whole church should take part in the excommunication.
Now, this is intimidating!
Yet, Paul helpfully says church discipline is carried out “with the
power of our Lord Jesus.” Previously,
Paul had told them that their faith needed to be in the power of God through
the gospel (2:4–5). Now, he’s saying
that Christ Himself stands behind the faithful exercise of church discipline. It is a great comfort to know that God will
give us the strength we need for all the matters of life.
This is especially important for the point that comes
next. Paul says to “deliver such a one
to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.”
This is judicial language that refers to excommunication[26]
— removing someone from the protection, fellowship, and privileges of the
church. Moreover, the individual will
find himself back in the realm of the world, which lies under Satan’s dominion.
Outside the church there is no covenant
protection, no affirmation of salvation, and no participation in the means of
grace.
And the man will face what one teacher called “the
sanctifying power of Satan.”[27] This does not mean demon possession, though
he may be oppressed. There is a
destruction that will take place, the severest result of church discipline, as
the man faces the accuser of the brethren in a similar way to how Job did.[28]
Now, this also doesn’t mean the man will necessarily die,
though he might if he doesn’t repent. Sin
can lead to ailments in the body, with excesses even leading to death. Yet, Paul indicates that the goal is repentance
and salvation.[29] In Scripture, “flesh” often refers not merely
to the body, but to the sinful orientation of fallen humanity. [30]
So, the aim is the mortification of the
man’s sinful desires so he will awaken to the seriousness of his condition and
to Christ.[31]
The purpose clause makes this unmistakably clear: “so that
his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” A person doesn’t have a chance to repent
after death, so now is the time of salvation.
The goal of this discipline is to redeem the person so he may be ready
for the final judgment. It’s better to
have a little pain now than eternal destruction later.
Remember what Paul said earlier. In 3:16–17, he reminded the church that they
are God’s temple, and that God takes the defilement of His temple seriously. Holiness is not optional for God’s temple, but
discipline (rightly exercised) is an expression of love for those who are inside
the covenant.[32]
There’s some possible good news. It’s likely that this man later repented. In 2 Corinthians 2, Paul urges the church to
forgive and restore a disciplined brother, lest he be overwhelmed by excessive
sorrow.[33] If this is the same man, this passage stands
as a powerful testimony to the redemptive purpose of faithful discipline.
Even if he didn’t repent, it would be important for the health
of the church to practice discipline anyway.
Paul will get into those reasons in the rest of the chapter. We’ll have to save those for next time,
though.
IV.
Conclusion
One of the sad realities of the modern church is how often church
discipline is neglected and misunderstood.
Many fear it as unloving or judgmental. But, Scripture presents it as necessary and
even loving. A church that refuses to
discipline sin ultimately refuses to love its members.
Holiness matters because Christ is holy. Grace doesn’t excuse sin; it confronts it. And love isn’t love if it ignores rebellion. Church discipline then, when exercised
biblically, is the application of all that God has called His people to care
about.
[1] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The
Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 199.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Matthew Henry, Matthew
Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume,
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2252.
[4] As the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith notes
in 26.3.a, “Of the Church.”
[5] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word
Pub., 1997), 1735.
[6] David Prior, The
Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church, The Bible Speaks Today,
(Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 71.
[7] F. Alan Tomlinson, CSB
Study Bible: Notes, 2017, 1818.
[8] MacArthur.
[9] A. T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 1 Co
5:1.
[10] Andrew David Naselli, Romans–Galatians, 2020, X, 253.
[11] Ciampa and Rosner, 200.
[12] Ibid., 202.
[13] Tomlinson.
[14] Ciampa and Rosner, 199.
[15] Ibid., 197.
[16] Naselli, 253–254.
[17] Ciampa and Rosner, 201.
[18] Ibid., 197.
[19] Jeremy Kimble, “Exclusion from the People of God: An
Examination of Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 1 Corinthians 5,” Themelios 46, no. 2 (2021): 339.
[20] John F. MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984), 124–125.
[21] Ciampa and Rosner, 202.
[22] Ibid., 198.
[23] J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, Eds., ESV Global Study Bible, (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2012), 1612.
[24] Tomlinson.
[25] MacArthur, The
MacArthur Study Bible.
[26] Ibid.
[27] John Piper, “How Satan Saves the Soul.” Message preached at Bethlehem Baptist Church,
5 September, 1993. Available at the
Desiring God website, http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/19/1848_How_Satan_Saves_the_Soul/. Accessed 22 March 2009.
[28] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael
S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R.
Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife Study
Bible, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Co 5:5.
[29] Ibid.
[30] David K. Lowery, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 514.
[31] Kimble, 340.
[32] Ciampa and Rosner, 209–212.
[33] MacArthur, 1
Corinthians, 127.