Analyzing Conjecture from the Scriptures Used for Dividing the Body: An examination of the 1

Corinthians 5:11 proof text.

I remember as a child lying in my room late at night after all the lights had been turned out. The
only light I had was the dim, single beam of moonlight that would find its way through the small gap in
my curtains. That single beam of moonlight would cast a thousand shadows on my walls. As I lay there
with the covers pulled up to my chin I would strain my eyes to make out the shapes and patterns. Often
times the shapes and patterns seemed to be the things that would go bump in the night and I’d lay there
in fear. However, when the sun began to rise, what once was something to be afraid of turned out to be
absolutely nothing at all.

Bad exegesis, pastoral intimidation, neo-legalistic exhortation, and socio-psychological, party

spirit coercion presents us with the same type of scenario. Far too many Christians are walking around
with the covers pulled up to their chins as they lay in fear of the moonlight exegesis. And they are
straining their eyes to make out the doctrine that goes bump in the night. However, when sound
exegesis is given then the Son dispels the ominous shadows and we realize that there is, in all reality,
absolutely nothing to fear.

In this example, specifically, I am dealing with the shadow of 1 Corinthians 5:11 as a proof text
for a brother or sister in the Body of Christ ostracizing another brother or sister in the Body of Christ
over a differing eschatological position or for the sake of a false taxonomy entitled “church discipline.”
This occurs either by the moonlit exhortation of a Pastor over a flock of sheep; or it occurs by a brother
or sister who reacts to the shadow on the wall, which ends up being really nothing at all.

1 Corinthians 5:11

A brief look at the context of chapter 5 casts the Son’s light on the shadow of division. Paul says
in v.1 “It is actually reported that there Is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind not tolerated even
among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” We see that the context is sexual immorality. Paul goes
on to admonish the Corinthians for being arrogant rather than mourning over this situation. In v.2 Paul
says “Let him who has done this be removed from among you.”

 This is dealing with a specific man in the 1st century

 This specific man is involved in a sexual sin; namely, having sexual relations with his father’s wife

Immediately it is to be noticed that this passage cannot be used as a blanket proof text to say
“Brothers and sisters, if you differ with someone in doctrine, or if someone is under ‘church discipline,’
then you should purge this person from among you. Do not even eat with such a person.” Such an
application is foreign to the context and is certainly eisegetical.
 Further contextual evidence to the specificity of Paul’s application is v.13 where Paul says
“Purge the evil person from among you.” In conjunction with this man who is guilty of specific sexual
immorality being called evil, he is also called leaven (v.6) and is said to “[bear] the name of brother
(v.11),” thereby implying the possibility that this evil, leaven man who is to be purged may not be a
Christian at all. I am unfamiliar with any passage(s) in the Scriptures that identifies a Christian as evil.
This possibility should cause anyone great pause before purging a brother or sister (evil one?) from the
community of believers.

Philosophically the moonlit, shadow eisegesis runs into serious problems when we consider
v.11. Paul says “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother
if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler – not even to
eat with such a one.” If a person posits that Paul is stating definitively that a person fitting any of these
description is leaven, evil, and must be purged, then these descriptions must be quantitative. Which of
you reading this has never looked upon a woman (man) with lustful intent (Matt. 5:28)? If you have then
you are guilty of sexual immorality, if even just once, and are evil, leaven, and should be purged from
the Church community. Which of you has ever placed anything above the Lord your God? If you have
then you are guilty of idolatry, are evil, leaven, and should be purged from the Church community.

Someone will be quick to say that this is a lifestyle of sin rather than just a onetime occurrence.
What quantity of any of these would define “lifestyle” or “habit?” Or is this an instance where we are
straining our eyes at the shadows trying to make out something that isn’t actually there? Such dogmatic
definitions to decide excommunication (anathema) is a slippery slope, indeed.

The context seems to indicate that the Corinthian’s were dealing with a person of ill repute. This
evil person was leaven amongst an unleavened lump. He was a person who bore the name brother but
was transgressing a law forbidden, not only by the Roman government, but a law laid out in
Deuteronomy –

A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness (22:30).

Cursed be anyone who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s
nakedness. And all the people shall say, “Amen” (27:20).

Paul had labored diligently as an Apostle and example to teach that the Church was to be above
reproach with regards to the culture around them so that they could “lead a peaceful and quiet life,
Godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2). Yet these believers were arrogant and dismissive
towards a man who was marring the Church in the eyes of a godless government, when the Church was
called to be the “pillar and buttress of truth” in just such a society (1 Timothy 3:15).

The question must also be asked, “Is it safe to deduce that this is a hard hearted man who is
unrepentant of a clearly defined sin?” If so, then what do you do in the situation of believers who
disagree over doctrine? Is the disagreement sin towards God or each other? A person will be hard
pressed to prove this is the case Biblically. Who decides which Christian should be repentant in the case
of doctrinal differences? It would seem that either a) the Scriptures must be labored through in order to
identify who is correct and who is not (and even at the end of this there may be no clear and Biblical
precedence set); b) there may be no need for repentance at all since doctrinal differences are
unavoidable and rampant in every congregation in the known world.

Lastly, if a person holds to the Matthew 18:15 formula for Church discipline as an Apostolic and
Biblical command then this person would be forced to admit that the man in question in 1 Corinthians 5
had been taken through the steps. What is assumed into the text of 1 Corinthians 5 is that this man has
been gone to privately in order to acknowledge the sin (which coincidentally Paul does not say was
against another brother, per Matthew 18:15), two or three witnesses have been taken to him in order to
establish every charge (which is a reference to Deuteronomy 19:15 and has to do with false witnesses
against someone else – something this text is not dealing with at all), he has been taken before the
Church, and is now being treated as a pagan or a tax collector and handed over to Satan for the
destruction of his flesh. This is total conjecture contextually.

1 Corinthians 5:11 is not a proof text for how to treat a child of God. 1 Corinthians 5:11 is not a
parallel to Matthew 18:15, which means to conjecture that it is a model for the Church discipline
formula is a non sequitur. 1 Corinthians 5:11 does not address how to approach members of the Body of
Christ who differ in doctrine. To proof text with a pretext out of context does an injustice to God’s word.
And when mishandled in the way that it is mishandled it devastates the Body of Christ, both individually
and corporately.