1 Cf. 1.11; 16.17.

2 The language is likely taken from Lev 18.7–8, where this specific union is forbidden. For condemnation of this practice in Judaism, see Lev 20.11; Deut 22.30; 27.20; Jub. 33.10–13; 11QT 66.11–12; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.12–21; Jos. Ant. 3.273–74; m. Sanh. 7.4; m. Ker. 1:1. It is plausible that the woman is not a member of the Corinthian congregation, since Paul does not issue a judgment on her as well (cf. 5.12). The present active infinitive of the verb ἔχω suggests an ongoing sexual relationship between the man and his stepmother. See Fee, G., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 200, 278Google Scholar; Konradt, M., Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor (BZNW 117; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 297–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. de Vos, C. S. (‘Stepmothers, Concubines and the Case of πορνεία in 1 Corinthians 5’, NTS 44 [1998] 104–14)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has argued for the possibility that the woman may have been the man's father's concubine. Against this view, see Lindemann, A., Der erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 124Google Scholar.

3 All translations in this paper are our own, unless otherwise indicated. We also have to note upfront our decision to include Colossians and 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline evidence presented in this paper. While we remain open to the idea of non-Pauline authorship of these two letters, the evidence for pseudonymity remains, in our view, inconclusive. For careful discussions on the authorship of these letters, see (on Colossians) Barclay, J. M. G, Colossians and Philemon (NTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 18–36Google Scholar; and (on 2 Thessalonians) Malherbe, A., The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 364–70Google Scholar.

4 Cf. 2 Sam 7.14–15.

5 See K. H. Rengstorf, ‘ἀπόστολος’, TDNT 1.407–47.

6 This is the only occurrence of this word in the Pauline corpus.

7 See, for example, Tertullian On Modesty 13–14; Käsemann, E., ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the NT’, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969 [1957]) 66–81Google Scholar; Kempthorne, R., ‘Incest in the Body of Christ’, NTS 14 (1968) 569–70Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 97Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 126–7Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2007 [1951–55]) 1.233Google Scholar; Shillington, V. G., ‘Atonement Texture in 1 Corinthians 5:5’, JSNT 71 (1998) 39Google Scholar. G. Forkman speaks of death in ‘both the physical and ethic-religious meaning’ (The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity [Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1972] 146Google Scholar); and S. D. MacArthur speaks of ‘a slow death which involves physical suffering’ (‘“Spirit” in Pauline Usage: 1 Corinthians 5.5’, Studia Biblica 3 [ed. Livingstone, E. A.; JSNTSup 3; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978] 251Google Scholar).

8 E.g., 1QS 2.5–6, 12–18; CD 7.21–8.3. See Roetzel, C. J., Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 112–25Google Scholar.

9 Cf. PGM 4.1247, 5.70–95, 5.174–80, 5.185–210, 5.335–36. See Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927 [1911]) 302Google Scholar; Collins, A. Y., ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’, HTR 73 (1980) 255–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 South, J. T., ‘A Critique of the “Curse/Death” Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8’, NTS 39 (1993) 539–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cf. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical, 1992) 23–88Google Scholar.

11 South, ‘Critique’, 545–6.

12 South, ‘Critique’, 546.

13 Thus, South's argument against the Qumran evidence could be a bit more nuanced. For example, he seems to deny the connection between Belial and Satan (‘Critique’, 546). In Qumran and Second Temple Jewish literature, however, Belial and Mastema are often designations for the leader of demonic angels. Thus, it is not farfetched to see Satan and Belial as equivalent figures. See our discussion below.

14 Smith, D. R., ‘Hand This Man over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5 (LNTS 386; London: T&T Clark, 2008)Google Scholar.

15 See Smith, Hand this Man over, 123–34.

16 Cf. Deut 13.1–5; 17.2–7; 19.16–20; 21.18–21; 22.21–30; 24.7. See Campbell, B., ‘Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT’, JETS 36 (1993) 339 n. 31Google Scholar; Ellingworth, P. and Hatton, H., A Translators' Guide on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians (London: United Bible Societies, 1985) 105Google Scholar; and especially Rosner, B., Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 69Google Scholar.

17 See Horbury, W., ‘Extirpation and Excommunication’, VT 35 (1985) 13–38Google Scholar.

18 See Smith, Hand This Man over, 146–50.

19 We note in passing that a novel reading of 1 Cor 11.30–34 has been suggested by S. W. Henderson in her study of the social dimension of this passage. Henderson notes that death in 1 Cor 11.30 could be the natural consequence of leaving some in the community hungry and weak. See Henderson, ‘“If Anyone Hungers…”: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17–34’, NTS 48 (2002) 195–208, esp. 206 n. 42Google Scholar.

20 See, e.g., Num 4.17–20; 1 Sam 6.6–7; 2 Sam 6.19–21.

21 Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 211.

22 Cf. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 210; Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde, 315–17.

23 Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde, 316.

24 Cf. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 213; South, ‘Critique’, 546; Wolff, C., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996) 104–5Google Scholar; Hays, R. B., First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: Knox, 1997) 86Google Scholar; Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde, 317.

25 See, for example, Lightfoot, J. B., Notes on the Epistles of St Paul from Unpublished Commentaries (London: Macmillan, 1895) 204Google Scholar; Lampe, G. W. H., ‘Church Discipline and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Corinthians’, Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (eds. Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D., and Niebuhr, R. R.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 337–61Google Scholar.

26 While Smith discusses briefly two proponents (one patristic and one contemporary) of a physical suffering and exclusion reading of 1 Cor 5 (see Smith, Hand this Man over to Satan, 29–33), he fails to engage extensively with this position, since his main target throughout seems to be proponents of an exclusion alone reading of this passage, a position which he attributes to a desire to establish a contemporary application of this passage for today's church (38–56).

27 This view was first proposed by Tertullian On Modesty 13; also Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul's Epistles (CSEL 81:54). See also Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 128. Cf. Martin, D. B. (The Corinthian Body [New Haven: Yale University, 1995] 174)Google Scholar, who argues that the spirit to be saved is both the spirit of the man and that of the church, and the flesh to be destroyed is both that of the man and that of the church.

28 A. Y. Collins, ‘Function’, 260; so also Collins, R. F., First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999) 213Google Scholar: ‘He directs the community to excise the fleshly individual—so characterized by reason of his incestuous behavior—from its midst so that the community might live under the power of the Spirit and be preserved for the day of the Lord’.

29 Shillington, ‘Atonement Texture’, 35.

30 Campbell, ‘Flesh and Spirit’, 340–1.

31 A. Y. Collins, ‘Function’, 259; South, ‘Critique’, 544–5, 552–3; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 213; R. F. Collins, First Corinthians, 212; Cambier, J., ‘La Chair et l'Espirit en 1 Cor v. 5’, NTS 15 (1968–69) 221–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joy, N. G., ‘Is the Body Really to Be Destroyed? (1 Corinthians 5:5)’, BibTr 39 (1988) 429–36Google Scholar; Thiselton, A. C., ‘The Meaning of ΣΑΡΞ in 1 Corinthians 5.5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors’, SJT 26 (1973) 204–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 395–8Google Scholar; Broek, L. Vander, ‘Discipline and Community: Another Look at 1 Corinthians 5’, RefR 48 (1994) 5Google Scholar; Pfizner, V. C., ‘Purified Community—Purified Sinner: Expulsion from the Community according to Matt 18:15–18 and 1 Cor 5:1–5’, ABR (1982) 46–7Google Scholar.

32 That Satan can on occasion serve God's purpose does not mean that Satan is not God's enemy. Thornton, T. C. G. (‘Satan—God's Agent for Punishing’, ExpTim 83 [1972] 151–2)Google Scholar, therefore, overstates his case.

33 Thus, 2 Cor 12.7 is inapplicable to this argument (contra South, ‘Critique’, 560). 2 Cor 12.7 is applicable to 1 Cor 5.5 only if Paul's ‘thorn’ in 2 Cor 12.7 is a reference to some physical ailment (though this position is contested) and ‘flesh’ in 1 Cor 5.5 refers to the man's physical flesh, not ethical flesh.

34 The verb must be supplied here. On our word choice here, see the discussion below.

35 Cf. Gal 6.1; 2 Thess 3.14–15.

36 See, for example, South, ‘Critique’, 544, 553–5; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 208–9; Kistemaker, S. K., ‘“Deliver this Man to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline’, TMSJ 3 (1992) 41–2Google Scholar; Campbell, ‘Flesh and Spirit’, 332 n. 8; Volf, J. M. Gundry, Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991 [1990]) 117–18Google Scholar; Robertson, A. T. and Plummer, A., First Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed. 1914 [1911]) 99Google Scholar.

37 So also MacArthur, ‘“Spirit” in Pauline Usage’, 249–50; Lampe, ‘Church Discipline’, 352; Smith, Hand this Man over, 55–6.

38 Cf. 1 Tim 5.20.

39 Pace Kistemaker, ‘Deliver this Man to Satan’, 41: ‘Handing someone over to Satan is akin to the prescription Jesus gave his disciples: treat an unrepentant sinner as a pagan or a tax collector (Matt 18:17)’.

40 Cf. Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul's Epistles (CSEL 81:53), who notes correctly that something more than common consent is being demanded from the community in the expulsion of the man; and Harris, G., ‘The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5’, NTS 37 (1991) 16–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Consequently, nothing could be farther from the truth than J. D. M. Derrett's thesis that Paul intends the Corinthians to hand over the incestuous man to civil authorities for his execution (‘“Handing over to Satan”: An Explanation of 1 Cor. 5:1–7’, Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 26 [1979] 11–30Google Scholar).

41 It may be inaccurate to supply a verb of non-existence here, as is found in a number of translations and commentaries (see, e.g., NIV; NRSV; NASB; Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 98; Fascher, E., Der erster Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [THKNT 7/1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975] 1.155Google Scholar; Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 120; Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘1 Corinthians 5:3–5’, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting Major Issues [Oxford: Oxford University, 2009] 12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 For further discussion, see Clarke, A. D., Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 (Leiden: Brill, 1993) 74–88Google Scholar.

43 Cf. A. Y. Collins, ‘Function’, 253: ‘Paul's response is more understandable if the illicit relationship was put forward, not only as a legitimate, but even as a commendable act of Christian freedom’.

44 So, e.g., NIV; JB; NASB; NEB; NET; REB; LUTH; Weiß, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th ed. 1910) 127Google Scholar; Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles, 204; Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 124; South, Disciplinary Practices, 35.

45 So, e.g., RSV; NRSV; NAB; NLT; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 207–8; Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde, 311–12.

46 See Murphy-O'Connor, ‘1 Corinthians 5:3–5’, 11–19, esp. 12.

47 See, e.g., Pagels, E., The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 64Google Scholar; Schrage, W., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKK 7/1; Zürich: Benziger, 1991) 1.372Google Scholar; Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 125–6; Murphy-O'Connor, ‘1 Corinthians 5:3–5’, 11–19; A. Y. Collins, ‘Function’, 253; Hays, First Corinthians, 84.

48 Murphy-O'Connor, ‘1 Corinthians 5:3–5', 12.

49 Murphy-O'Connor, ‘1 Corinthians 5:3–5’, 12.

50 Schrage is, therefore, on the right track when he claims that Paul confronts a ‘provokativ-ideologischen Akt’ (Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 1.372), though he does not develop his argument persuasively.

51 Cf. Gal 1.8; 5.10; 2 Cor 11.1–15; Phil 3.2.

52 Cf. 1 John 2.18; 4.1.

53 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 74–88, has argued for the possibility that the incestuous man may have been of high social standing within the community; so also Chow, J. K., Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992) 130–41Google Scholar. If this hypothesis is correct, it may provide some explanation for the urgency of Paul's call, since this man would command even greater influence.

54 A brief word about Shillington's thesis is in order. Shillington argues that the scapegoat ritual of Lev 16, where the scapegoat is handed over to Azazel on the Day of Atonement, informs Paul's dynamistic sentence of 1 Cor 5.5 (Shillington, ‘Atonement Texture’, 29–50). The incestuous man becomes the sin-bearing victim who bears away the sins of the community. There are many problems with this thesis. It should suffice, however, to note that Paul never transfers the sins of the community to the incestuous man. The sin in view is not that of the community but that of the man. If there is any potential transfer that might take place it is the sinful influence of the one man that has the potential to spread to the community, not the other way around. In addition, in order to find some parallel between the goats of Lev 16 and the ritually unclean incestuous man of 1 Cor 5, Shillington avers: ‘Goats were desert dwelling animals, already impure even before they entered the sacred precincts’ (45). It is significant that Shillington cites no evidence for this claim. Goats are not included in the impure animals lists of Lev 11 and Deut 14. Moreover, according to the Torah (see Lev 11), mammals that both ruminate and have cloven hooves are kosher. This will include goats.

55 See Gal 5.9, where Paul again uses the same yeast proverb in a context in which he is arguing against the spread of false teaching.

56 Cf. Pfizner, ‘Purified Community’, 41.

57 Cf. 1 Thess 5.8 (Job 2.9); 5.22 (Job 1.1; 1.8); 2 Thess 2.8 (Job 4.9); Gal 6.7 (Job 4.8); Phil 1.19 (Job 13.16); 2 Cor 4.6 (Job 37.15); Rom 1.20 (Job 12.7–9); 8.34 (Job 34.29); 9.20 (Job 9.12); 11.33 (Job 5.9); 11.33 (Job 9.10); 11.34 (Job 15.18).

58 Cf. Job 1.12; 19.25–27.

59 Hebrew = השׂטן (‘the satan’).

60 Hebrew euphemism ברך.

61 ‘Then the Slanderer carried on and said to the Lord, “Skin for skin; whatever a man has he will give in payment for his life. However, stretch forth your hand and touch his bones and his flesh; surely, he will curse you to your face.” Then the Lord said to the Slanderer, “Behold, I am handing him over to you; only guard his life”.’

62 ‘Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, in order that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord’.

63 Cf., for example, Matt 4.10–11, where both terms are used.

64 Rom 16.20; 1 Cor 7.5; 2 Cor 2.11; 11.14; 12.7; 1 Thess 2.18; 2 Thess 2.9.

65 It is probable that the OG translator of Job holds to an anthropology in which the ψυχή could represent either life in general or the inner, invisible aspect of a person, while the σάρξ represents the outer, material aspects of a person. This is confirmed by the wording of such passages as Job 7.15; 9.21; 27.4—passages that bear almost no resemblance to their MT counterparts. Thus, one could read Satan's own words as a desire to afflict Job's outer person (ὀστέον καὶ σάρξ [bone and flesh]; cf. Job 2.7). God, therefore, gives Satan permission to afflict Job's flesh and bones, but he is commanded to guard carefully Job's ψυχή. ψυχή here, and almost always elsewhere in the LXX and OG, translates the Hebrew נפשׁ. Since the ψυχή and σάρξ may represent the inner and outer person, respectively, for the OG translator of Job—it is at least possible that Paul read the OG Job this way—then ψυχή and σάρξ could be viewed as diametrically different components of the human being for the translator. If Paul understood the verse this way, it may help explain Paul's deviation from the OG translator. See our discussion below.

66 The term appears only 12 times in the authentic Pauline letters (counting Colossians). Two of the instances are taken over from OT quotations (Rom 11.3; 1 Cor 15.45). The terms πνεῦμα and σάρξ are, however, ubiquitous in the Pauline letters.

67 When ψυχή is used, it can carry the connotation of ‘being’ or ‘life’ (cf. Rom 2.9; 11.3; 13.1; 16.4; 1 Cor 15.45; 2 Cor 12.15; Phil 2.30; Col 3.23; 1 Thess 2.8); it has the sense of ‘mind’ in Phil 1.27; and in 1 Thess 5.23 it is included in a list with spirit and body (σῶμα).

68 See, e.g., Gal 5.16–18; 6.8; Rom 7.14–8.17. Cf. Gal 2.20; 2 Cor 10.3.

69 The possibility that Paul goes directly from the Hebrew OT to the Greek in some instances must also be left open.

70 Cf. Rom 8.4–10; Gal 5.17–19; 6.8.

71 See also 2 Cor 7.1; 1 Thess 5.23.

72 What our brief outline of Paul's anthropological terms and 1 Cor 5.5 may suggest is that we may need to exercise some caution in our attempts to reduce each of Paul's anthropological terms to single concepts. For a discussion of Paul's anthropology, see Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971)Google Scholar; van Kooten, G. H., Paul's Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (WUNT 232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)Google Scholar; Mitchell, M., Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010) 38–57Google Scholar.

73 The charge that Paul could not have Job in mind because Job deals with a righteous and blameless man while 1 Cor 5 deals with an immoral man should be taken seriously, though, in our view, this charge should not be permitted to have the last word by virtue of the fact that Paul deems all humans to be under the power of sin (see, e.g., Rom 3.9–18, 20, 21–24). Thus, it seems plausible to posit that Paul would not have put Job in any special category. I am grateful to John Barclay for this insight.

74 It is indeed the case that a distinction needs to be made between the satan, a (benign?) member of the heavenly court in the OT (cf. Job 1–2; Zech 3.1–5), and Satan, an evil archenemy of God and the elect in later Jewish and Christian literature. But since this modern distinction was insignificant to Paul, we have kept Satan in our treatment of the figure in Job. We have also argued elsewhere that the satan in Job is not as benign as this modern distinction often supposes; see our article, ‘“The satan” in Light of the Creation Theology of Job’, HBT 34 (2012) 19–34Google Scholar.

75 Cf. Theodoret of Cyrus Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 193 (Migne PG 82:262): ‘We are taught by this that the devil invades those who are separated from the body of the church because he finds them deprived of grace’; translation in ACCS 7.47.

76 Cf. 1 John 5.19; Eph 2.1–2.

77 Hays, First Corinthians, 83.

78 Cf. Eph 6.10–13; 1 Pet 5.8.

79 There is a long tradition of identifying the offender in 2 Cor 2 with the incestuous man of 1 Cor 5, though this is unlikely. For a discussion of the various positions, see Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 160–8Google Scholar.

80 See BDAG, ‘πρόσωπον’, 887–8.

81 Cf. Jub. 10.7–9, where Mastema is explicitly identified as Satan. See van Henten, J. W., ‘Mastemah משׂטמה’, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. van der Toorn, K., Becking, B., and van der Horst, P. W.; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 553–4Google Scholar.

82 See Jub. 17.16; 48.15–18; 1 En. 40.9. Cf. CD 16.3–6; 4Q225 2.2.13.

83 Cf. 1 En. 41.9.

84 See, for example, Jub. 48.15–19; 1 En. 40.9.

85 So also Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 93Google Scholar.

86 Cf. 2 Cor 1.23, where Paul calls on God as a witness.

87 Thrall, Margaret, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 vols.; ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1994) 1.181Google Scholar.

88 G. Delling, ‘πλεονέκτης’, TDNT 6.267–74.

89 See BDB, ‘בצע’.

90 In the words of the author of Ephesians, ‘Do not give the Devil a foothold’ (Eph 4.27).

91 B. Rosner's argument that Paul urges the Corinthian community to mourn because God holds the whole community responsible for the sin of the incestuous man is not entirely convincing; see Rosner, ‘“ΟϒΧΙ ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΕΠΕΝΘΗΣΑΤΕ”: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5’, NTS 38 (1992) 470–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Paul thinks the Corinthians are implicated in their indifference to the incestuous man's presence in the community. But this is a far cry from imputing corporate guilt to the community.

92 Contra Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 124 (‘[Paul] will make his contribution, as the Corinthians reflect on what they remember of his convictions, character, and ways, and on what they know of his mind in the present matter’) and Cole, G. A., ‘1 Cor 5:4 “…with my spirit”’, ExpTim 98 (1987) 205Google Scholar (‘Paul's presence at Corinth in 1 Cor 5.4 could have taken the form of an authoritative verbal one, located in his written judgment’) this is more than mere psychological and epistolary presence. What Paul means here may be difficult for us to grasp, but Paul believed he would be present when the church gathered to carry out the sentence. Thus, the phrase ὡς παρών (5.3) should not be translated as ‘as if/though present’ (NIV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; etc.); there is almost nothing in favor of this translation. Paul has already judged the man as one who is actually present; so, correctly, Findlay, G. G., ‘St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians’, The Expositor's Greek Testament (ed. Nicoll, W. R.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1961 [1900]) 808Google Scholar.

93 The major challenge this camp may raise against the argument presented here has to do with Paul's use of the word ὄλεθρος, for the word often carries the strong meaning of death or annihilation. In 2 Thess 1.9, however, Paul contrasts ὄλεθρος αἰώνιος—which he describes as exclusion from the glorious presence of God—with eternal life. ὄλεθρος in this (eschatological) context cannot mean death or annihilation (see Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 402), but rather an eternal life of affliction that is the opposite of an eternal life of glory. Paul is, therefore, capable of using the same term to describe the physical affliction that will come upon an offender as a result of his being excluded from the body of Christ. Paul's hope is that the affliction suffered will save the man from ὄλεθρος αἰώνιος. Ultimately, as we hope to have shown, the cumulative evidence of Job 2.4–6, 1 Tim 1.20, 2 Cor 2.5–11, and Ps 89.32–33 point in the direction of physical suffering leading to repentance.

94 Cf. Gal 6.1; 2 Thess 3.14–15.

95 The NRSV translates Job 42.6 as ‘Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes’. We have argued elsewhere that a better translation, in light of the logic of the book of Job, might be: ‘Therefore I recant and adopt a different opinion concerning dust and ashes’; see ‘“The satan” in Light of the Creation Theology of Job’, 19–34. Both translations, nonetheless, capture the transformation in Job, which is the result of his suffering and encounter with God.

96 Cf. Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde, 320–1. Konradt argues for a similar position: that the physical afflictions suffered at the hands of Satan would eventually bring about a change in the incestuous man. Thus, his dismissal of Job in his treatment of this passage (317) is quite unfortunate. We hope to have shown that if one is to arrive at an interpretation of 1 Cor 5.5 that sees Satan's physical afflictions leading to transformation in the incestuous man, then the strong echoes of Job and 1 Tim 1.20 will need to be taken very seriously and developed. We may also note in passing that the interpretation presented here finds an instructive parallel in the rabbinic concept of atonement by suffering, especially in the rabbinic teaching that affliction leads a person to examine his/her ways, which in turn engenders repentance and an earnest seeking after God (see, e.g., R. Akiba's reflection on Manasseh in Mek. Bahodesh 10).

97 Cf. 2 Tim 2.25–26.