An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 5:5: Textual Variants and Translational Implications
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 23, 2003. The verse under consideration presents a severe disciplinary injunction against a member of the Corinthian community who is living in incest, instructing the church to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” This command immediately raises questions about the nature of this “handing over,” the specific meaning of “destruction of the flesh,” and its ultimate purpose, which is stated as “so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” This tension between immediate harsh judgment and ultimate redemptive hope forms the core of interpretive challenges.
The main exegetical issue lies in reconciling the seemingly contradictory elements within the verse: the act of “delivering to Satan,” typically associated with negative spiritual consequences, with the explicitly stated positive outcome, “that his spirit may be saved.” Interpreters grapple with understanding the mechanism of this “destruction of the flesh”—whether it refers to physical affliction, the eradication of sinful impulses, a social or spiritual excommunication, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, the identity of “the spirit” (the individual’s human spirit, their spiritual being, or a more communal aspect) and the precise nature of “salvation” in “the Day of the Lord” are crucial for a coherent understanding of Paul’s disciplinary ethics and eschatological outlook.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No significant textual differences are observed between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for 1 Corinthians 5:5. Both editions present an identical Greek text for this verse, indicating a high degree of textual stability in this particular passage across widely accepted critical editions.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 5:5, as presented in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28), aligns precisely with both the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 editions, demonstrating a lack of significant textual variants in the manuscript tradition for this verse. This textual stability allows exegetical focus to concentrate primarily on grammatical and lexical nuances rather than manuscript divergencies.
Lexical analysis provides critical insight into key terms:
- παραδοῦναι (paradounai): The aorist infinitive of παραδίδωμι, meaning “to hand over, deliver, commit, entrust.” BDAG (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) notes its usage in contexts ranging from handing over a person for punishment or execution (e.g., Jesus to Pilate) to entrusting responsibility. Here, the nuance is one of judicial or disciplinary handing over. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) emphasizes the aspect of surrendering to an authority or power.
- ὄλεθρον (olethron): The accusative singular of ὄλεθρος, meaning “destruction, ruin, perishing.” BDAG defines it as “a state of utter ruin and wretchedness, destruction, ruin, perishing.” It can denote physical death (e.g., in war), but in Paul, it often carries an eschatological sense of eternal ruin or separation from God (e.g., 2 Thess 1:9). KITTEL delves into its semantic range, suggesting it signifies a complete and utter end, though in a disciplinary context, it might be a temporary, salvifically oriented “destruction.” The specific nature of this “destruction of the flesh” is a major point of contention.
- σαρκός (sarkos): The genitive singular of σάρξ, “flesh.” BDAG offers a broad semantic range including the material of the body, the human body as a whole, human nature (especially in its weakness or fallen state), and earthly existence. In Paul, “flesh” can contrast with “spirit” (πνεῦμα), often representing the sinful, fallen human nature in opposition to God’s Spirit or the regenerated human spirit (Rom 8:1-13). KITTEL extensively explores the theological significance of σάρξ, highlighting its connection to humanity’s creatureliness and, post-Fall, its susceptibility to sin.
- πνεῦμα (pneuma): The nominative singular of πνεῦμα, “spirit.” BDAG lists various meanings, including wind, breath, and spirit. In reference to humans, it can mean the human spirit, the immaterial part of a person, or the seat of emotions and intellect. In this context, it is most likely the person’s *human spirit* or *inner self*. KITTEL details the diverse applications of πνεῦμα, noting its use for the divine Spirit, but also for the animating principle of human life, which can be saved or lost.
- σωθῇ (sōthē): The aorist subjunctive passive of σῴζω, meaning “to save, deliver, preserve.” BDAG indicates that it primarily refers to rescue from danger or affliction, with a strong emphasis on spiritual and eschatological salvation in the New Testament. The passive voice implies that salvation is something received rather than achieved.
- ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου (en tē hēmera tou Kyriou): “in the Day of the Lord.” This phrase is an eschatological idiom referring to the time of God’s final judgment and salvation. BDAG defines it as “the time of final judgment and salvation at the coming of Christ.” KITTEL expounds on the prophetic background of “the Day of the Lord” in the Old Testament, where it signifies a day of divine intervention, judgment, and ultimately, salvation for God’s people. Its presence here firmly places the ultimate outcome in an eschatological context.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The grammatical structure of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is relatively straightforward but carries profound implications. The main clause “παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ” (“to hand over such a one to Satan”) expresses a decisive disciplinary action. The infinitive implies a command or instruction from Paul to the Corinthian church. The dative “τῷ Σατανᾷ” indicates the recipient of this handing over, highlighting a theological dimension of spiritual warfare and the boundaries of the Christian community. To be outside the protection of the community is to be, in some sense, exposed to the adversary.
The first purpose/result clause, “εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός” (“for the destruction of the flesh”), introduces the immediate aim of this action. The preposition εἰς with the accusative denotes purpose or result. The crucial interpretive challenge lies in “ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός.” Grammatically, “τῆς σαρκός” is a genitive of relationship or reference, specifying what is to be destroyed. Rhetorically, the phrase is stark. Does “flesh” refer to the physical body, suggesting illness or death as a disciplinary measure (akin to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, or the judgment on the unworthy partakers of the Supper in 1 Cor 11:30)? Or does it refer to the sinful nature, the “fleshly” impulses that led to the incest, implying that the disciplinary action is meant to mortify or destroy that sinful disposition? The latter aligns with Paul’s broader theological anthropology (e.g., Romans 6-8, Galatians 5), where the “flesh” is often personified as the locus of sin.
The second, overarching purpose clause, “ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου” (“in order that the spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord”), modifies the entire command. The conjunction ἵνα clearly indicates a teleological (purpose) clause. This is the ultimate, redemptive goal of the harsh action. The passive voice of “σωθῇ” underscores divine agency in salvation. The phrase “τὸ πνεῦμα” most plausibly refers to the individual’s human spirit, the core of their being that can be in relationship with God. The temporal phrase “ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου” situates this salvation firmly in the eschatological future, emphasizing that even severe earthly judgment can serve a redemptive purpose for eternity. Rhetorically, this clause acts as a powerful qualifier, transforming an otherwise purely punitive command into a profoundly hopeful one, underscoring Paul’s pastoral concern even in severe discipline. The tension between present destruction and future salvation is central to Paul’s disciplinary rhetoric.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegesis of 1 Corinthians 5:5 reveals Paul’s complex and severe approach to church discipline, aimed not merely at punishment but at ultimate redemption. The phrase “destruction of the flesh” is best understood not necessarily as physical death, but as a severe, perhaps divinely enabled, disciplinary process intended to break the power of sinful flesh (the sinful nature or impulses) in the individual’s life, thereby paving the way for spiritual restoration. The act of “handing over to Satan” symbolizes excommunication from the protective sphere of Christ’s church, exposing the individual to spiritual and perhaps physical hardship, but all within God’s sovereign plan for ultimate salvation.
Considering these complexities, here are three nuanced translation suggestions:
- “You are to hand this man over to Satan for the severe affliction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.”
This translation emphasizes a more physical interpretation of “destruction of the flesh,” suggesting that the man might experience illness or other corporeal suffering as a direct consequence of being outside the church’s protection, with the ultimate goal being his spiritual restoration at Christ’s return. - “You must deliver this individual to Satan, leading to the utter subduing of his sinful nature, in order that his spirit might be saved on the Day of the Lord.”
This rendering interprets “destruction of the flesh” as the mortification or eradication of the sinful impulses and patterns of behavior (“sinful nature”) that characterize the man’s unrepentant state. It focuses on a spiritual and moral transformation as the immediate goal, which then contributes to his ultimate spiritual salvation. - “Hand this person over to Satan, with the purpose of a disciplinary ruin of his carnal desires, so that his inner being may be preserved unto salvation on the Day of the Lord.”
This suggestion offers a more generalized interpretation, encompassing both the severe nature of the disciplinary action and its redemptive intent. “Disciplinary ruin of his carnal desires” attempts to capture the dual sense of severe consequence for sin and its specific aim at the fleshly aspects of human existence, all with the overarching hope for the “inner being” (spirit) to be ultimately “preserved unto salvation.”
At 3:23 PM -0600 2/21/97, T & J Peterson wrote:
>. . . PARADOUNAI TON TOIOUTON TWi SATANAi EIS OLEQRON THS SARKOS,
>hINA TO PNEUMA SWQHi EN THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. (1 Cor 5:5)
>
>The handing over to Satan has enough of its own problems, and I would
>appreciate comment on that aspect, but my real concern is with the hINA
>clause. Does it necessarily identify the salvation of the spirit as
>contingent upon the act of handing over? Or, to put it another way,
>does the action of the assembly in disciplining the sinner directly
>affect his salvation? Also, how does the hINA clause relate to the EIS
>phrase that precedes it?
This strange little formula–and I can never look at it without stopping
and shuddering at the way it’s been used in Toledo by Torqemada, probably
even by Calvin against Michael Servetus–is as close to unfathomable as
anything in the entire Biblical corpus (although I could suggest some close
seconds)–is apparently a formula of excommunication. I take it that the
“delivering to Satan” referred to by PARADOUNAI means fundamentally
dismissing the person in question from the congregation and its circle of
divine “protection” in accordance with the formulae elsewhere indicated in
Mt 16, Mt 18, Jn 20 etc. where we are told in slightly different terms that
the decision of the earthly authority will be ratified in heaven. I would
not imagine that the community itself takes any part in the OLEQROS THS
SARKOS beyond the dreadful step of abandoning the excommunicate in hopes
that, as he labors under the curse, he may come to his senses and repent
and be forgiven. Grammatically, at any rate, I would understand that the
erstwhile believer, henceforth a profaned exile, is subject to Satan’s
power to destroy him. How then does the possibility of salvation enter in?
My guess (nothing more than that) is that it is the extremity of this
action that is itself to arouse the sinner to the peril in which he now
stands; only that awakening may make it possible for him to be saved. OR:
surely there can be nothing automatic about this “deliverance to Satan for
the destruction of the evil self (SARX)” triggering salvation, I wouldn’t
think.
There are a couple possible paralles that might illuminate this passage a bit.
(1) One is the 3x repetition of PAREDWKEN in Romans 1, where Paul speaks of
God’s abandoning humanity to suffer the consequences of its failure to
acknowledge Him as creator; humanity, consequently, is “God-forsaken” and
one might well assert that it is COMPLETELY “given over to, surrendered to”
Satan. The only way out is recognition that this is one’s condition, and
consequent repentance. It would seem to me that this is what the
excommunication and the surrender of the ex-member to Satan is intended to
accomplish–not an automatic salvation, but rather the only conceivable
hope of his salvation.
(2) The other interesting parallel is in Luke’s gospel; at the end of the
Temptation narrative, we are told (Lk 4:13), KAI SUNTELESAS PANTA PEIRASMON
hO DIABOLOS APESTH AP’ AUTOU ACRI KAIROU–Jesus is free from Satan’s power
during the period now beginning–UNTIL A SUITABLE TIME. That time arrives
at the outset of the Passion Narrative (Lk 22:3), EISHLQEN DE SATANAS EIS
IOUDAN …, the significance of which becomes clear in Jesus’ words to the
arresting authorities (Lk 22:53), ALL’ hAUTH ESTIN hUMWN hH hWRA KAI hH
EXOUSIA TOU SKOTOUS. Luke seems to understand Jesus at this moment as
“handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.” It is no human
action that reverses the destruction but God’s power that raises Jesus from
the dead. If this illuminates the passage in 1 Cor, then perhaps it means
that the only hope for the salvation of the spirit of the unrepentant
sinner rests with God himself.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
===
Ronald Wong wrote:
[snipped]
> you quote in the middle of Paul’s thought….verse five is actually the
> resumption of v 3. (HDH KEKRIKA).
> the hINA clause is purpose….purpose of what? well…”ALREADY I have
> judged. . . ) v.3.
But what is that judgment? Granted, v. 4 is parenthetical, whereby we
have Paul saying HDH KEKRIKA . . . PARADOUNAI TON TOIOUTON . . . . So,
if the judgment was to hand this one over to Satan, and if the purpose
of the judgment was that his spirit might be saved, then that purpose
naturally carries over to the form the judgment took. Does anyone have
a way of viewing this passage that would not end up at that conclusion?
> I don’t believe it is Paul’s intention to say that delivering one to
> Satan is the salvation of TOV TOIOUTON. (I could be wrong….) But
> that Paul was saying that the intention of the judgement is hINV TO
> PNUEMA SWQH EN TH hMERA TOU KURIOU.
>
> could the action of the assembly in disciplining the sinner directly
> affect his salvation? hm…I don’t think you could find this supported
> in the NT. I could be wrong…
>
Which is what I’m trying to discern. Even if we take the purpose of the
judgment, your question doesn’t change much. Could the action of Paul
(who clearly says that he made this judgment in anticipated congruence
with the assembly) or of the assembly in judging or disciplining the
sinner directly affect his salvation? I don’t think you could find it
supported in the NT either, but what then does he mean? If hINA
introduces his purpose, then how does the act of judging or handing over
to Satan further that purpose?
Trevor
====
A brief footnote:
The introductory section to Chapt 8 (“Prepositions”) of Mounce’s _Basic
of Biblical Greek_ contains a brief, but very informative discussion of
exactly this topic.
(For those unfamilar with Mounce’s book, he begins each chapter with a
page-long “Exegetical Insight” to illustrate and motivate the material to
be covered in that chapter. The section mentioned above is written by
Craig L. Blomberg.)
Nichael Cramer
work: [email protected]
home: [email protected]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
At 3:23 PM -0600 2/21/97, T & J Peterson wrote:
>. . . PARADOUNAI TON TOIOUTON TWi SATANAi EIS OLEQRON THS SARKOS,
>hINA TO PNEUMA SWQHi EN THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. (1 Cor 5:5)
>
>The handing over to Satan has enough of its own problems, and I would
>appreciate comment on that aspect, but my real concern is with the hINA
>clause. Does it necessarily identify the salvation of the spirit as
>contingent upon the act of handing over? Or, to put it another way,
>does the action of the assembly in disciplining the sinner directly
>affect his salvation? Also, how does the hINA clause relate to the EIS
>phrase that precedes it?
This strange little formula–and I can never look at it without stopping
and shuddering at the way it’s been used in Toledo by Torqemada, probably
even by Calvin against Michael Servetus–is as close to unfathomable as
anything in the entire Biblical corpus (although I could suggest some close
seconds)–is apparently a formula of excommunication. I take it that the
“delivering to Satan” referred to by PARADOUNAI means fundamentally
dismissing the person in question from the congregation and its circle of
divine “protection” in accordance with the formulae elsewhere indicated in
Mt 16, Mt 18, Jn 20 etc. where we are told in slightly different terms that
the decision of the earthly authority will be ratified in heaven. I would
not imagine that the community itself takes any part in the OLEQROS THS
SARKOS beyond the dreadful step of abandoning the excommunicate in hopes
that, as he labors under the curse, he may come to his senses and repent
and be forgiven. Grammatically, at any rate, I would understand that the
erstwhile believer, henceforth a profaned exile, is subject to Satan’s
power to destroy him. How then does the possibility of salvation enter in?
My guess (nothing more than that) is that it is the extremity of this
action that is itself to arouse the sinner to the peril in which he now
stands; only that awakening may make it possible for him to be saved. OR:
surely there can be nothing automatic about this “deliverance to Satan for
the destruction of the evil self (SARX)” triggering salvation, I wouldn’t
think.
There are a couple possible paralles that might illuminate this passage a bit.
(1) One is the 3x repetition of PAREDWKEN in Romans 1, where Paul speaks of
God’s abandoning humanity to suffer the consequences of its failure to
acknowledge Him as creator; humanity, consequently, is “God-forsaken” and
one might well assert that it is COMPLETELY “given over to, surrendered to”
Satan. The only way out is recognition that this is one’s condition, and
consequent repentance. It would seem to me that this is what the
excommunication and the surrender of the ex-member to Satan is intended to
accomplish–not an automatic salvation, but rather the only conceivable
hope of his salvation.
(2) The other interesting parallel is in Luke’s gospel; at the end of the
Temptation narrative, we are told (Lk 4:13), KAI SUNTELESAS PANTA PEIRASMON
hO DIABOLOS APESTH AP’ AUTOU ACRI KAIROU–Jesus is free from Satan’s power
during the period now beginning–UNTIL A SUITABLE TIME. That time arrives
at the outset of the Passion Narrative (Lk 22:3), EISHLQEN DE SATANAS EIS
IOUDAN …, the significance of which becomes clear in Jesus’ words to the
arresting authorities (Lk 22:53), ALL’ hAUTH ESTIN hUMWN hH hWRA KAI hH
EXOUSIA TOU SKOTOUS. Luke seems to understand Jesus at this moment as
“handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.” It is no human
action that reverses the destruction but God’s power that raises Jesus from
the dead. If this illuminates the passage in 1 Cor, then perhaps it means
that the only hope for the salvation of the spirit of the unrepentant
sinner rests with God himself.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
===
Ronald Wong wrote:
[snipped]
> you quote in the middle of Paul’s thought….verse five is actually the
> resumption of v 3. (HDH KEKRIKA).
> the hINA clause is purpose….purpose of what? well…”ALREADY I have
> judged. . . ) v.3.
But what is that judgment? Granted, v. 4 is parenthetical, whereby we
have Paul saying HDH KEKRIKA . . . PARADOUNAI TON TOIOUTON . . . . So,
if the judgment was to hand this one over to Satan, and if the purpose
of the judgment was that his spirit might be saved, then that purpose
naturally carries over to the form the judgment took. Does anyone have
a way of viewing this passage that would not end up at that conclusion?
> I don’t believe it is Paul’s intention to say that delivering one to
> Satan is the salvation of TOV TOIOUTON. (I could be wrong….) But
> that Paul was saying that the intention of the judgement is hINV TO
> PNUEMA SWQH EN TH hMERA TOU KURIOU.
>
> could the action of the assembly in disciplining the sinner directly
> affect his salvation? hm…I don’t think you could find this supported
> in the NT. I could be wrong…
>
Which is what I’m trying to discern. Even if we take the purpose of the
judgment, your question doesn’t change much. Could the action of Paul
(who clearly says that he made this judgment in anticipated congruence
with the assembly) or of the assembly in judging or disciplining the
sinner directly affect his salvation? I don’t think you could find it
supported in the NT either, but what then does he mean? If hINA
introduces his purpose, then how does the act of judging or handing over
to Satan further that purpose?
Trevor
====
A brief footnote:
The introductory section to Chapt 8 (“Prepositions”) of Mounce’s _Basic
of Biblical Greek_ contains a brief, but very informative discussion of
exactly this topic.
(For those unfamilar with Mounce’s book, he begins each chapter with a
page-long “Exegetical Insight” to illustrate and motivate the material to
be covered in that chapter. The section mentioned above is written by
Craig L. Blomberg.)
Nichael Cramer
work: [email protected]
home: [email protected]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/