BEN F. VICK, JR.
The church at Corinth had many problems, one of which was the case of a man living with his father’s wife. Such was not even named among the Gentiles (1 Cor. 5). Rather than mourning over the situation, the brethren were puffed up, meaning they had an “exaggerated self-conception.” Paul said, “your glorying,” that is, your boasting is not good. It is difficult to understand how they could have felt that way. Regardless, Paul, though absent, had judged the situation. He told them when the church came together to deliver the man to Satan. (1 Cor. 5:2-5).
The reason for delivering this brother to Satan was for the destruction of the flesh, i.e., to stop his practice of fornication and to save his soul on the last day. The desire was to cause this brother to repent. The apostle gives another reason for disciplining this brother: “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Allowing such sin to remain in the church without discipline will cause others to be influenced to sin. Alexander Pope, the poet, said it well: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien as to be hated needs only to be seen; yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Paul commanded, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. The removal of leaven alludes to the Israelites having been required to remove all leaven from their houses before the observance of the Passover. Leaven here stands for wickedness and evil. Unleavened indicates purity. Paul exhorted, “Therefore, let us keep the feast not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice or wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8.) Withdrawal of fellowship is to be done out of sincerity and truth, not out of revenge or hatred. It is because we love the souls of those out of step that discipline is to be practiced.
What is involved in delivering such a one to Satan? Paul answers:
“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 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. 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.” (1 Cor.5:9-11.)
Note that Paul does not speak concerning those in the world. We must live in the world. We buy our food and clothes from those in the world. We must work with those in the world. No, Paul said, “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 railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; such an one no not to eat.”
What is the meaning of: “not to company”? The sense is not to “mingle, associate with” (BDAG.) Thayer’s Greek lexicon defines the word as “to keep company with, be intimate with, one.” Louw and Nida’s lexicon says, “to associate with one another, normally involving special proximity and/or joint activity, and usually implying some kind of reciprocal relation or involvement.” “Not to keep company” means not to socialize with that person.
So, what does “with such an one no not to eat” mean? According to some, it refers to the Lord’s supper. There are several things wrong with this interpretation. First, the context does not bear out that meaning. “Not to keep company” connotes not socializing with that person and, more specifically, not eating with that person. Absolutely nothing in the text applies this to the Lord’s supper.
Second, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that to be the meaning. If the person is not attending the church services, does that mean one can continue to eat a meal with him? How is one withdrawing from that person if he is not attending the church services anyway, but one continues to socialize and eat with the individual? Such would be no withdrawal of fellowship at all. And how is that working out? Is the unfaithful member any closer to repenting and returning to the Lord? Question: Suppose the unfaithful brother or sister continues to attend the services, who will keep him or her from taking the Lord’s supper? And why stop with the Lord’s supper? There are other acts of worship as well. Who will stand at the door and refuse such a person entrance to the worship assembly? Who will practice closed worship for that individual?
Do you think some members of the church would socialize and eat with such an one if he or she were not a family member? No, “with such an one no not to eat” refers to eating a common meal with a withdrawn from brother or sister. That would include special occasions as birthday parties, Thanksgiving, Christmas meals, etc. Some members of the church have continued to socialize with those unfaithful individuals because they are family. Blood is thicker than water and sometimes thicker than Christianity. Jesus said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37-38.) The cross one may have to bear is to refrain from socializing with a family member.
In response to this, it is said: “But Jesus ate with sinners!” Indeed, he did! For what purpose? Luke records:
And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them. But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:29-32)
Jesus ate with sinners to urge them to repent. Is that the reason why some will eat with unfaithful members of the church? Or is it merely to socialize? Is it because he or she is family? To the church at Thessalonica, Paul wrote concerning how to treat a withdrawn brother or sister: “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (2 Thess. 3:15.) “Admonish” means “to counsel about avoidance or cessation of improper course of conduct, admonish, warn, instruct.” The word “admonish” is a command in the present tense, which means continuously in Greek. So, does one continue to warn and admonish when eating with this person, or does one act as if everything is fine between him and the Lord? Remember, a soul is a stake.
This is what the Bible teaches.