Interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:9-13

[John81]

The thing churches have to be careful about is WHY the person is being disciplined. Some churches do not discipline Biblically, therefore the "shunning" is also extraBiblical.

If the discipline is correct, then "shunning" can be done correctly. Although I don't think God ever means for everyone to just never say "Hi" to the person again...because there has to be some sort of allowance for possible repentance. The person should still sense some love, even if the acceptance is not there.

And that's where some churches go wrong with shunning, in that they don't do this out of love with the hope those shunned will come to repentance and restoration in the fellowship of believers. Some tend to shun out of a "holier than thou" spirit which isn't Christlike.

[Pastorj]

Is this passage limited to the church or if your best friend moves in with a member of the opposite sex, are you required to break fellowship with that person if they call themselves a Christian.

[Guest Guest]

I would think so. That isn't a minor issue, it is clearly forbidden in scripture.

[Pastorj]

So the interpretation is that if an individual who professes to be a Christian is in violation of one of the items listed, other Christians are to break company with them and to not eat meals with them.

Let's talk application then:
What if this Christian is a family member?

[Anon]

My husband feels that the "no not to eat" is regarding the Lord's Supper, which again goes back to church discipline.

He feels that "heathen man and publican"...well Jesus ate with them (not to be friends, but to be a testimony) and so its not saying you can't eat Thanksgiving dinner with your unsaved or backslidden relatives...but that you aren't going to purposefully want to be in their company all the time, and you're gonna leave when the bubbly comes out....etc.

[Pastorj]

Where is the Lord's supper even mentioned in this passage?

[Guest Guest]

So the interpretation is that if an individual who professes to be a Christian is in violation of one of the items listed, other Christians are to break company with them and to not eat meals with them.

That is my view of it at least.

Let's talk application then:
What if this Christian is a family member?

I can't say I see any difference. Of course you should pray for them and encourage them to repent but if they will not... To borrow from 2 Corinthians 6:15, what concord hath Christ with Belial? That truth significantly hurts the relationship....

[Anon]

Where is the Lord's supper even mentioned in this passage?

Contextually the whole book is speaking of church and church practices (the first chapters talk about disciplining that one guy out...in II Cor he repents and comes back) and the Lord's Supper is also included in the context of the book.

Technically the only other time "eating" is mentioned in the book is related to the Lord's Supper.

[Pastorj]

Sorry, but that's weak exegesis. There are many themes throughout the entire book of 1 Cor.

[Guest Guest]

Still kitagrl, it is hard to get from "any man that is called a brother" to just "church member". Paul called many people "brother" in his letters when they were not part of the same church.

[Anon]

I didn't say that it didn't apply to non church members....I was just saying that my husband :cooldude: believes that "no not to eat" is referring to the Lord's Supper.

Not that its a huge deal really....I have two chat screens up right now LOL or I'd go read the passage again....

[Anon]

According to John Gill we are both right:

not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator; or if any man that is a brother is called, or named a fornicator; or covetous, or an idolater; or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no, not to eat. The apostle?s meaning is, that in his prohibition of keeping company with men of the above character, he would be understood of such persons as were called brethren; who had been received into the church, and had been looked upon, and had professed themselves to be such; and who might be mentioned by name, as notoriously guilty of fornication, covetousness, idolatry, and extortion, mentioned in the former verse; to which are added two other sins any of them might be addicted to, as "railing" either at their fellow brethren and Christians, or others giving reproachful language to them, and fixing invidious characters on them: and "drunkenness"; living in the frequent commission of that sin, and others before spoken of; and that such persons remaining impenitent and incorrigible, still persisting, in such a vicious course of life, after due admonition given them, were not only to be removed from their religious society, from the communion of the church, and be debarred sitting down, and eating with them at the Lord?s table, or at their love feasts, but also were to be denied civil conversation and familiarity with them, and even not suffered to eat common food at the same table with them: which though lawful to be used with the men of the world, yet for some reasons were not advisable to be used with such; partly for vindicating the honour of religion, and preventing the stumbling of the weak; and partly to make such offenders ashamed, and bring them to repentance. The apostle alludes to the behaviour of the Jews, either to persons that were under any pollution, as a woman in the days of her separation, when her husband hme lkay al, "might not eat with her" off of the same plate, nor at the same table, nor on the same cloth; nor might she drink with him, nor mix his cup for him; and the same was observed to persons that had issues on them {o}: or rather to such as were under ywdn, "the sentence of excommunication," and such an one was obliged to sit the distance of four cubits from others, and who might not eat nor drink with him; nor was he allowed to wash and shave himself, nor a sufficiency of food, nor any to sit with him within the space of four cubits, except those of his house {p}.

[Bakershalfdozen]

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.


I would like to get your understanding of this passage.

My take on this...


Vs. 9-10 - Paul is admonishing the Corinthians believers to stop keeping company with fornicators. He goes on to say that doesn't necessarily mean the unsaved because if that were the case then you would just have to leave the earth altogether.

Vs. 11 - If a fellow believer is a fornicator, or is covetous, or is an idol-worshipper, or is a railer (abusive, reviler), or is a drunk or cheats people then the rest of the church is not to keep company (pal around) with them, not even to have a meal.

Vs. 12-13 - God will judge the unsaved has given the church the responsibility to remove wicked people such as these from the congregation.


If you're not in the same church? I don't know. I assume that since all believers are the body of Christ, that you should make it perfectly clear that you don't approve of whatever they are doing and why and that you won't be having palsy-walsy social interaction with them?

[Samer]

This reminds me of Jude 3-14. Summarizing the related points: Contend for the faith because there are those who will sneak in among the faithful--ungodly men, turning grace into lasciviousness. The Lord saved His people out of Egypt, but then had to destroy the tares from among them... These people can be likened to fornicators. Woe unto them... "These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you." Their fruit withers, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots... to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

That's similar with what we see here in 1 Corinthians 5. A fornicator eating with the brethren, whom they are exhorted to reject. A judgment is promised for the wicked person.

I agree with what Seth said, that these are exhortations against false brethren ("called a brother"). In verse 5, the hope is that by getting such a person out of the church and exposing him for what he really is (even giving him over to Satan), perhaps the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. That phrase "day of the Lord" is a phrase of second coming judgment against unbelievers.

If somebody is a twofold child of hell, and a false, thorny-ground convert (twice dead), the best thing we can do is expose him and kick him out of our midst (from a church) so he will drop the delusion that he is a Christian, get out of the comfort and protection of that church, and perhaps see himself for what he really is.

[rancher824]

I would have to agree with Kitagrl (& her husband lol) that it is speaking of the Lord's supper, not just any meal. As has been stated, Jesus at with those sinners and pharissees of his day. As to the shunning, Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. If you are shunning him, you cannot admonish him. Speak, and be friendly. But you cannot be in the membership of the church with him.