1 Cor 5.5 - Atonement Texture

7/28/2019 1 Cor 5.5 - Atonement Texture

1/23

[JSNTIX (1998) 29-50]

ATONEMENT TEXTURE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 5.5

V. George Shillington

Concord College/University of Winnipeg169 Riverton Avenue, Winnipeg, MB

R2L 2E5, Canada

The abundance of studies on 1 Cor. 5.5 bears ample testimony to thevexing problems associated with this Pauline text. 1 Not least among theproblems is the severity of the language of ritual sentence meted out tothe immoral member at Corinth. Is there a plausible horizon implied in

the text that helps us read Paul's stern language of exclusion sympathetically? This article will attempt to answer that question by positing atextual context for 1 Cor. 5.5 in the biblical-Jewish tradition of atonement, in which a sin-bearing sacrifice is 'handed over' to a desert-dwelling figure, Azazel, to cleanse Israel of its sin. It will be argued (1)that this textual context is indeed implied, and (2) that this setting bestexplains the 'dynamistic ceremony' 2 represented in the texture of

1. The following sampling illustrates: J. Cambier, 'La chair et l'esprit en I CorV.5 \ NTS 15 (1968-69), pp. 221-32; A.Y. Collins, The Function of Excommunication in Paul', HTR 73 (1980), pp. 251-63; Anthony C. Thiselton, TheMeaning of sarx in 1 Corinthians 5.5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logicaland Semantic Function', SJT26 (1973), pp. 204-28; Brian S. Rosner, Temple andHoliness in 1 Cor 5', TynBul 42 (1991), pp. 137-45; James T. South, A Critique of the "Curse/Death" Interpretation of 1 Cor 5.1-8', NTS 39 (1993), pp. 539-61; ColinG. Kruse, The Offender and the Offence in 2 Cor 2.5 and 7.12', EvQ 88 (1988),pp. 129-39 (identifies the incestuous man of 1 Cor. 5.5 with the wrongdoer of 2Cor. 2.5); J.D.M. Derrett, ' "Handing Over to Satan": An Explanation of 1 Cor 5.1-

7', Revue internationale des droits de Vantiquit 26 (1979), pp. 20-25; Bruce A.McDonald, 'Spirit, Penance and Perfection: The Exegesis of 1 Cor 5.3-5 from A.D.


2/23

30 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71 (1998)

1 Cor. 5.5: , (literally trans

lated: 'to hand over such a [person] to Satan for the destruction of theflesh, in order that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord').Origen's interpretation^ of 1 Cor. 5.5 focused on the exclusion of the

immoral man from the church to facilitate his penitential preparationfor re-entry to good standing, and thus also to lead to his redemption inthe end. 4 Most interpreters since Origen have more or less adopted thisreading of Paul's text. s Paul intended the man to be reinstated in thecommunity in order for his own individual spirit to be 'saved in the day of the Lord'. Moreover, churches intent on applying Paul's sentence of exclusion in this text to cases of transgression among their membershave practised 'excommunication' as a form of church discipline. Theexpelled member is supposed to feel the sting of expulsion, heed thegospel, repent of the sin, and return to the fold of the church to be savedin the day of the Lord. 6 But this appropriation scarcely takes intoaccount the generative matrix 7 within which Paul's dynamistic sentenceof 1 Cor. 5.5 was uttered. An excommunicated member of a modern (or postmodern) church, less dependent on community status for living inan industrial society than a member in a Pauline community would be

3 I am indebted to Bruce McDonald lor his exhaustive treatment of Origen'sinterpretation of 1 Cor 5 5, in 'Spirit, Penance', pp 36-72

4 The punishment, although it may seem punitive, is basically remedial andhas as its aim the full restoration of the offender to the congregation' , McDonald,'Spirit, Penance' , pp 72-73

5 Representative of this reading of the text in modern times are F F Bruce,1 and 2 Corinthians (London Oliphants, 1971), 55, A Robertson and A Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to theCorinthians (Edinburgh & Clark, 1911), 100, James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), 57, William F Orr and James A Walther, / Corinthians (AB, 32, New York Double-day, 1976), 189, Jean Hring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians(London Epworth Press, 1962), 36

6 E g , Marlin Jeschke employs the phrase 'redemptive excommunication' toexplain Paul's judgement on the sinner in 1 Cor 5 (Discipling the Brother Con

gregational Discipline According to the Gospel [Scottdale Herald Press, 19721,

pp 102-23)7 Ben F Meyer, The Earl\ Christians Their World Mission and Self-


3/23

SHILLINGTON Atonement Texture in 1 Corinthians 5.5 31

for an agrarian society, 8 might not be so inclined to consider theinstitutional church of Euro-America a way to be saved at the end-time.

Origen's interpretation, on which the above practice of excommunication is based, succeeded in demolishing Tertulliano view, 9 whichsensed Paul's overriding concern for the spiritual well-being of thecommunity of faith in Christ. The individual, according to Tertullian,was not the burden of Paul's sacral sentence. The spiritual life of thecommunity was. 'The destruction of the flesh referred to the expulsionof the offender from Christian fellowship, with the possibility of deathensuing.' 10 The 'spirit' to be saved in the day of the Lord, according toTertullian, was the Holy Spirit of Christ and God indwelling the community. 11 Moreover, the reason for excluding the man from the Spirit-empowered group was to save, or preserve, the eschatological community for presentation in the day of the Lord. But this view of Tertullianfell by the wayside in the course of church history, thus allowingOrigen's interpretation to hold sway.

Recently, however, some scholars, sensitive to the group consciousness of first-century Mediterranean society, rather than the individualism of twentieth-century industrial society, have turned attention onceagain to Paul's concern for the body politic of the Christ-community inthis injunction of 1 Cor. 5.5. 12 The discussion that follows does likewise, and seeks to demonstrate that Paul re-enacts the atonement text of Leviticus 16, in conjunction with the prohibition texts (Lev. 18.8;20.11; Deut. 23.1; 27.20), in the texture of 1 Corinthians 5, and that at5.5 in particular he transforms the biblical/Jewish tradition of 'handingover' the scapegoat in keeping with his vision of the new community of

8. Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996),pp. 183-84

9. For a clear and comprehensive accounting of all references to 1 Cor. 5.5 inTertullian, see McDonald's chapter on Tertullian in 'Spirit, Penance', pp. 6-24.

10. McDonald, 'Spirit, Penance', p. 24.11. McDonald, 'Spirit, Penance', p. 12.12. See, for example, Collins, 'Function', pp. 251-63; Malina and Neyrey, Por-

traits of Paul, pp. 183-84; Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Recon- ciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of


4/23

32 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1\ (1998)

Christ as the holy shrine of God. n This proposed allusion to the atonement tradition illuminates the structure of Paul's sacral/legal sentence

in v. 5, and opens up the referential world14

that Paul created in the textof 1 Corinthians 5.

More than Parallel or Echo

An allusion in a text is not merely a perceived parallel between Paul'stext and some other text of the time, which he may or may not haveknown. Several such parallels can be cited between Paul's severeinjunction in 1 Cor. 5.5 and Greek magical texts; 15 similarly betweenPaul's text and the instruction in the Damascus Document^ and in theCommunity Rule ]1 about the expulsion of disobedient members fromthe Jewish covenant community at Qumran. Instructive as these parallels are for understanding the action Paul enjoins in 1 Cor. 5.5, they donot qualify as allusions within Paul's text. Evidence that Paul knewGreek magical texts or even Qumran literature first-hand is tentative.But he was profoundly aware of the Greek version of his JewishScriptures to which he alludes and from which he quotes frequently. ls

13 Brian Rosner in Temple and Holiness m 1 Cor 5 \ pp 137-45, adduces persuasively that 1 Cor 5 is an application of the metaphor of the temple in 3 16-17The expulsion of the sinner is cto restore the holiness of God's temple, the church'(p 137), see also Collins, 'Function', pp 259-60

14 A phrase stemming from Paul Ricoeur 's theory of interpretation, e g ,Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation', in Essays on Biblical interpre-tation (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1980), pp 73-118 (100) The world of thetext is the sort o world intended beyond the text as its reference The world of the text designates the reference ot the work of discourse, not what is said, but aboutwhat is said The issue of the text is the world the text unfolds before itself '

15 ghost [or demon] of a dead man (nek\daimn), whoever you are, I handover (paradidomi) to you so-and-so, in order that he might not do such-and-such adeed', cited in Collins, 'Function', 255

16 "All who backslid were handed over to the sword And such is the verdicton all members of the covenant who do not hold firm to those laws they are condemned to destruction by Belial [= Satan] ' Col 7-8, translation by Michael Wise,Martin Abegg, Jr and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls A New Translation

(San Francisco HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), pp 57-5817 'May the God of terror give you over to implacable avengers, may He visit


5/23


Paul's sacred Scripture texts were ready and waiting to be triggered bya situation that bears some semblance to the texture of the text at

hand.19

Some sense of the triggered text is then reconfigured into thetexture of the new text being created for the moment.Although Richard B. Hays, in his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters

of Paul, does not use 1 Cor. 5.5 to illustrate his theory of 'intertextualechoes', 20 in his recent commentary of 1997 he does reluctantly admit a'faint echo' of Job 2.4-6, but then discounts it as less than adequate forunderstanding the passage. 21 Instead Hays suggests the Passover metaphor (vv. 6-8) as 'the best explanation for "handing over to Satan'", 22

even though the removal of the leaven for Passover has little connection with 'handing over' and just as little with 'Satan'. If an earlier textis 'echoed', to use Hays's favoured term, it is the atonement text of Leviticus 16. But the volume ofthat text in Paul's re-texturing in 1 Cor.5.5 seems louder than 'echo', and more like allusion. Although scapegoat/atonement imagery is rare in Paul's letters (if it is present atall outside this one place), 23 its allusive presence in the texture of 1Corinthians 5 should not be surprising, as the ensuing analysis willdemonstrate.

19. For a helpful discussion of the 'texture' of texts referred to here, see 'InnerTexture' and 'Intertexture' in Vernon K. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian

Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 44-143.20. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 29-32.21 . Richard B. Hays, 1 Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox

Press, 1997), pp. 84-85. Other scholars (e.g., Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians,p. 188) have invoked more favourably the story of Job's encounter with Satan inthe Jewish Scriptures to resolve the problem of Satan's role in the man's salvation(taking the purpose clause in 5.5b to refer to the salvation of the immoral man). ButJob's dramatic experience with Satan scarcely fits the situation at Corinth. Job wasan upright man from the start, and remained so through the severe trials executedby his Accuser, Satan. True to character, Satan in the book of Job aimed at destroying the upright Job. But Job was not an immoral man, nor was his flesh destroyed.By contrast, the ceremonial 'handing over' of the immoral Corinthian to Satan is

intended precisely for 'the destruction of the flesh'.22. Hays, / Corinthians, pp. 84-85.


6/23

34 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71(1998)

Structure and Context of 1 Corinthians 5.5

Of primary importance in hearing the allusion in 1 Cor. 5.5 is toaccount adequately for the form of the text, and then to see this severesentence within the context of ch. 5, and beyond that to consider ch. 5in relation to the preceding and subsequent trains of thought in 1Corinthians.

The 1611 English version of the Bible (KJV) followed Paul's wordorder in 1 Cor. 5.5 literally: 'to deliver such an one unto Satan for thedestruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the

Lord Jesus'.24

However, a number of modern translations of 1 Cor. 5.5fixate on the immoral individual, his expulsion from the church and theeventual salvation of his spirit at the end-time (e.g. NEB, NIV, RSV,NRSV). These translations thus supply (his) with (thespirit) to indicate that the immoral man's spirit will be saved in the day of the Lord by his expulsion into the domain of Satan. His expulsionthus is a kind of expiation for his sin. Two factors seem to drive thetranslators to supply to specify the identity of . The

first is a modern tendency to make the individual central to discussionsof life and death issues of human existence. And the second is adualistic understanding of human nature assumed to be part of Paul'sHellenistic thought. 2S The spirit part of the immoral man is slated for salvation in the day of the Lord by his expulsion from the church for the destruction of his flesh part at the hands of Satan. 26 It is highly doubtful, however, whether Paul's anthropology would entertain thisstark dualistic notion (and even more doubtful that Paul would assignSatan a role in the man's eschatological salvation). In point of fact,Paul's Greek text does not have with . Moreover, theform of Paul's purpose clause (

24 The translators relied on the textus receptus and thus translated 'Lord Jesus'

25 On Hellenistic ideas of dualism, and Paul's possible acquaintance withthose views, see David E Aune, 'Human Nature and Ethics in HellenisticPhilosophical Traditions and Paul Some Issues and Problems', in Troels Engberg-

Pedersen (ed ), Paul m his Hellenistic Context (Edinburgh & Clark, 1994),pp 292-305


7/23


) leaves open the live option that refers to the Spiritof Christ resident in the new community of faith.

W.G. Kmmel, in his expansion of Lietzmann's comment on 1 Cor.5.5, countered Lietzmann's idea of the necessity of inserting tomake sense of the identity of . Paul, says Kmmel, was notdiscussing the serious consequences of immorality () for theindividual, but rather for the community constituted by the Spirit of Christ. 27 The community could forfeit that Spirit by permitting sexualimmorality in its membership to persist unchecked. As Collins affirms:

If [the members] have lived in accordance with the Spirit, it will be preserved or kept safe for the community; that is, they will remain in union

with it, God, and Christ. If they have defiled the Spirit by, for example,sexual sins, the Spirit will be lost to the community and they will beexcluded from the kingdom of God (see 6.9-11). 28

By removing the one immoral member from the community the mem bership keeps the Spirit of Christ, while the Spirit is effectively takenfrom the immoral man. A number of scholars now hold this view as acorrect reading of Paul's sentence of removal. 29

Two factors govern Paul's vision in 1 Cor. 5.5: the group politic(ecclesiology) and the final salvation of the Christ-community (escha-tology). 30 is the guarantee that the community of Christ willparticipate in the final triumph of God over sin and death (2 Cor. 1.22;5.5). The human spirit of an individual member offers no suchguarantee of salvation in the day of the Lord. 31 Paul allows no place in

27. W.G. Kmmel in D. Hans Lietzmann, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament: An die Korinther I, II (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969), p. 174: Taulus sagt nichtsdarber, inwiefern der pltzliche Tod des dem Satan bergebenen Snders dieRettung des bewirke. Dass der Snder durch seinen raschen Tod seineSnden zu shnen Gelegenheit erhlt... Ist keine wahrscheinliche Annahme, daPaulus sonst von Gott als dem durch Christi Tod die Snde shnenden redet (Rra3.24f). Erst recht ist aber nicht davon die Rede, dass das des so bestraftensich im Jenseits auf unbekannte Weise der Vollkommenheit nhert; an ein Jenseitsdenkt Paulus hier gar nicht.' Cf. Lietzmann', Handbuch, p. 23.

28. Collins, 'Function', p. 260.29. Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in

the Church of the First Three Centuries (trans. John A. Baker; London: A. & C.Black, 1969), pp. 134, 147; Collins, 'Function', p. 259; Snyder, First Corinthians,


8/23


the Spirit-filled community for the sort of immorality described in1 Corinthians 5. Hence the summons from Paul to the congregation at

Corinth to rid itself of one whose immoral life contradicts the communal life in the Spirit of Christ awaiting vindication/salvation in theday of the Lord.

What about handing such a person over to Satan for the destructionof the flesh ( )? It is now well recognized that , 'to hand over',

became a technical term in Greek magical texts for casting a spell on adeviant member of the group. The conclusion that paradidomi is atechnical term in Greek magic is supported by the fact that it occurs inthree charms intended to reveal and punish a thief...: "Hand over (parados) the thief who took such-and-such.'" 12 Moreover, the use of this word for the practice of expulsion of deviants from the group intothe sphere of another power was present in the world of Paul's time. Asa technical term, is associated with the ritual of cursingpracticed in religious settings of Mediterranean society. In the judicialsense also in the same society a person is 'handed over' to the court to

be judged, ^ a setting not unlike the one Paul sets up for the congrega

tion in 1 Corinthians 5: have already pronounced judgment...when you are assembled and my spirit is present with the power of the LordJesus, you are to hand over this man'. In this particular case, however,the 'assembly' is more probably one of worship, as Hays suggests/ 4

rather than a tribunal of sorts. The power to which the assembled groupis to hand over the individual is Satan (), a term of Aramaicorigin designating the arch-opponent of God. 'Satan' conjures up theidea of powers of the underworld to which the individual is to be con

signed.^ Paul, being Jewish, might be expected to use the well-knownHebraic name 'Satan' for the destructive power opposed to God. Theextent to which Paul would have been familiar with execration/judicial

community, and favours an affirmative answer to the second 'Does the baptisedman possess a character indelebilis^ Or is the intention precisely that the Spiritshould be taken from him 7 , (First Corinthians, 98)

32 Collins, 'Function', 255 The citation of a Hebrew equivalent (msr) of

in Exodus Rabba in Strack and Billerbeck is dubious, in that it is lateand cannot therefore be used for the time of Paul

33 F B h l ' ' TDNT II (1964) 169


9/23


10/23


handed over to Satan 'for the destruction of the flesh' so that the Spiritresident in the community might be saved in the day of the Lord. In this

reading, Paul, present in spirit with the congregation,40

acts as apostolichigh priest for the worshipping community. The immoral man becomesthe sacral victim.

But what is meant by 'the flesh' that is handed over to Satan for destruction? And in what sense is 'the flesh' destroyed? These questions need to be cleared away before any headway can be made inresolving the puzzle in this severe injunction of Paul. The root meaningof the word (flesh) refers to the muscular parts of animals andhumans, and by extension the physical, sensing aspect of animate life. 41

Paul uses the word in that sense, 42 but uses it also in a metaphorical way to characterize human life apart from the saving action of the Spiritof God, as in Gal. 5.16-17:

Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh() For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what theSpirit desires is opposed to the flesh, for these are opposed to each other,to prevent you from doing what you want

So it is possible that 'flesh' in 1 Cor. 5.5 carries a metaphorical nuancesimilar to that found in Galatians 5. The NIV translates it thus: 'Handthis man over to Satan so that the sinful nature [] may bedestroyed' (italics mine). The 'sinful nature' in view in this translationis that of the immoral man, since the purpose of the destruction in theNIV is to save 'his ' spirit in the day of the Lord. If Paul has themetaphorical meaning in view he may not be thinking solely of theimmoral man's flesh, but of the fleshly attitude of the community 4^ thatallowed such a man access to the communion of saints (1.2). Themetaphorical flesh of the group may need to be destroyed by 'handingover' the one immoral individual.

40 On the 'apostolic presence' of Paul via the text of his letter, see G A Cole, Cor 5 4 With my Spirit', ExpTim 98 (1986-87), 205, and Robert Funk, Th e

Apostolic Parousia Form and Significance', in W R Farmer, C F D Moule andR R Niebuhr (eds ), Christian Histon and Interpretation Studies Presented toJohn Knox (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp 249-68

41 See Johannes Louw and Eugene A Nida (eds ), Greek-English Lexiconof the New, Testament Based on Semantic Domains, I (New York United Bible


11/23


Yet there is no apparent reason for taking the metaphorical meaningof in isolation from the primary sense. The man's physical being,

associated as it is with immorality, is destroying the spiritual life of thecommunity. His ritual removal from the community is not only metaphorical but also physical. His destruction at the hands of Satan isprobably likewise not merely metaphorical but also physical. In Paul's

view he will die physically, however abhorrent the idea may be tomodern sensibilities. Ernst Ksemann avers this vision of Paulunabashedly: 'delivery of the guilty over to Satan...obviously entailsthe death of the guilty' , 44 And Ksemann is not alone in this judgement.Conzelmann says, 'the destruction of the flesh can hardly mean anything else but death'. 45 J. Schneider states the case even more stridently: 'Paul obviously believes that the curse will be followed by the(sudden) death of the person thus condemned'. 46 In another way Collinsaffirms the same, except that the death of the man comes in the immanent eschatological crisis: Cor. 5.5 seems to imply that the incestuous man, under the power of Satan and living "according to the flesh," would be physically destroyed in that crisis and eternally damned'. 47

Exactly how the death would occur Paul does not state, except thatthe Destroyer, Satan, would execute it. Elsewhere, in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul deals with abuses at the Lord's Supper, he reports the sickness and death of some members who eat the bread and drink the cupof the Lord 'in an unworthy manner' (1 Cor. 11.27-32). But the deathsreported in that text are not the same as the death by the Destroyer implied in 5.5. In ch. 11 neither Paul nor the church passes any deathsentence, whereas in 5.5 Paul does. The people whom Paul censures inch. 11 are instructed to change their ways. The immoral man in ch. 5,

by contrast, is not so instructed. Rather, the congregation in ch. 5 iscalled upon to carry out a sacral act of 'handing over' the immoral manto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. The act is deliberate andempowered by the Lord Jesus: 'When you are assembled, and my spiritis present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this manover to Satan for the destruction of the flesh., .'(

44. Ernst Ksemann, 'Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament', in NewTestament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 71.

45. Conzelmann, / Corinthians, p. 97


12/23


[]

) (5.4-5a).Taking this analysis of the texture of 1 Cor. 5.5 by itself (without a

detailed discussion of its context at this point), its form carries the samesense as the ritual handing over of the scapegoat to Azazel (viz. Satan)for the destruction of its flesh on the Day of Atonement. The purpose of removing the sacrificial animal from the sacred precincts of the electcommunity was to rid Israel of its sins and make the people right withGod. This atonement text from Leviticus 16, reconstituted in 1 Cor. 5.5as a dynamistic ceremony 'in the power of the Lord Jesus' (5.4), hasmore to commend it than other proposals to date. While the proposedcomparisons in Greek magical papyri shed light on the practice of casting a member from a group into an alien realm, 48 they do not at thesame time speak directly to the background texts that informed Paul'sstatement about purging the community of its sin. Nor do the expulsiontexts of Qumran qualify in the same way, 49 even though Paul may have been acquainted with the community from which those texts came.Paul's first-hand knowledge of his Scriptures (LXX), clearly evidencedthroughout his letters, points to their primacy and authoritative status inhis correction of communal faith and life. Texts from his Scripturesspring spontaneously to new expression in situations such as the onecited in 1 Corinthians 5. Moreover, the most likely texture to inform thedynamistic texture of 1 Cor. 5.5 is that of the atonement of Leviticus16, where the scapegoat victim is handed over to Azazel for thedestruction of its flesh so that the community of Israel would becleansed of its sins and thus sanctified for the Lord.

However difficult it is to grasp the strands of tradition that shapePaul's writing of 1 Cor. 5.5, as Ksemann states, 'there exists for Paulin very real terms a law which has to be observed within the commu-nity, although it has almost nothing to do with the forms of law whichwe assume and administer'. 50

When the dynamistic 'sentence of holy law' 51 in 1 Cor. 5.5 is viewedin the context of Paul's supporting argument of ch. 5, the volume of theallusion to Leviticus 16 becomes even louder. At 5.1 Paul opens a new

48. See n. 15 above.


13/23


unit with reference to an oral report (possibly from 'Chloe's people',1.11) 52 that sexual immorality () has entered the community

(5.1). The specific case, according to the holiness code of Lev. 18.8, isincest: man is living with his father's wife', presumably theoffender's stepmother (5.1). 53 The relationship appears to be at leastongoing, if not permanent as in marriage. And the community (at leastsome members) flaunts the case, as though sexual sin could not touchtheir life in the Spirit of Christ. Paul's focus throughout is the corporatelife of the community, as evidenced in the consistent use of the communal plural, 'you' (). 54 'You [pi.] are arrogant! Should you [pi.]not rather have mourned []... ?' (5.2). Mourning the sins of the people, in the form of humble self-denial, was binding for theatonement ritual in Israel: 'Anyone who does not practice self-denialduring that entire day shall be cut off from the people' (Lev. 23.29). 55

Paul's word for the act of mourning () connotes a humble self-denial similar to that enjoined in Leviticus 23 for the Day of Atonement. The problem at Corinth lies with the attitude of the community.They permit the sexual sin of incest in the fellowship of Christ, and areproud of their stand. As long as the sin remains unatoned in the com

munity the people cannot celebrate their new life in the Spirit of Christthe paschal lamb (5.7).

The sin of the one contaminates the many, in Paul's vision, just asone bit of leaven affects the whole lump of dough (5.6). 56 The sin is

52. The oral reporters may not have come from Corinthians but from outsidersunfavourable towards them. The Corinthians would not have written Paul about thematter; so John Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965), pp. 77-78.

53. Roman law also ruled against a man marrying his father's widow or divorced wife; see references in Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on I and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad,1989), pp. 13-14.

54. Concerning the corporate focus in 1 Cor. 5, see Brian Rosner, 'ouchi mallonepenthesate: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Cor 5' , NTS 38 (1992), pp. 470-73.

55. At Lev. 23.29, the KJV reads 'afflicted' ( 1?; LXX )rather than 'self-denial ' (NRSV). See further on the holy Sabbath of the Day of

Atonement in Gray, Sacrifice, pp. 306-308.56. According to Leslie Mitton, leaven refers to an infection-laden lump of

dough mixed with yeast, which was cleansed out of the house ritually once a year


14/23


such 'that is not found even among pagans' (5.1b). 57 Hence the note of alarm in the rhetoric at the opening of the appeal. If Paul has the prohi

bitions of Leviticus 18-23 in mind in citing the incest at Corinth, as healmost certainly does, then it is equally plausible that he has the riddance ritual of the Day of Atonement also in mind (Lev. 16.6-10, 20-22; cf. 23.1-44; Num. 28-29). The 'handing over' of the one will savethe many.^ 8 To be sure, the ceremony in the new setting at Corinth isdifferent from the ceremony in Israel past. The earlier text that lingersin Paul's mind explodes within the new setting of the Christ-community. S9 No longer does Paul have a sacred goat to bear away the sins of the elect community to the wilderness; there is no actual wildernessnear Corinth, just as there is no tent of meeting, much less Jerusalemtemple, from which to lead a physical goat. The new shrine of God isthe living community of Christ at Corinth (3.16-17), and the sin-bearing victim in this instance is the incestuous man. Conversely, the

victim-lamb of redemption in Passover texts has become Christ: 'our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed' (5.7b). So it is that two allusions converge from the texts of Torah to form a new texture in1 Corinthians 5, one from the texts of Atonement for the sins of thecommunity, and one from the texts about God's salvation of the people.In both cases Paul explodes (or exploits) the earlier texts to speak a

word on target into the new situation at Corinth.

The sacral language that immediately leads up to the dynamisticsentence of v. 5 is unmistakable. Paul brings his apostolic presence(viz. authority) to bear on the situation 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'and 'with the power of the Lord Jesus', even though Paul himself iselsewhere at the time (5.4). The letter (1 Corinthians) acts as his pres

ence.60

Then comes the 'handing over' text itself at v. 5, followed by the allusion to the Passover texts. The order of the two allusions inch. 5 may carry some significance: first the allusion to the prohibition/atonement texts of the holiness code and second the reference to the

57 Talbert, Reading, pp 13-1458 The idea of the one for the many (cf Jn 11 50, Mk 10 45) involves more

than mere substitution in the case of 1 Cor 5 The ritual of 'handing over' the one

immoral man transfers the contamination of the many to the one Cf S H Hooke,'The Theory and Practice of Substitution', VT2 (1952), pp 2-17


15/23


festival of Passover. The purification rituals recorded in Leviticus 11-19 precede the appointed festivals of Israel recorded in Leviticus 22-

25. That is, the removal of sin from the community is a precursor to thefestal celebration of salvation. So here in 1 Corinthians 5: clean out theold immorality embodied in the incestuous man, then celebrate your new life in Christ, the sacrificial, paschal lamb (5.7-8).

To return to the imagery of the holy shrine of God briefly, the proba bility of an allusion to the atonement text of Leviticus 16 in 1 Cor. 5.5is further bolstered by the earlier reference to the Corinthian community as 'God's temple' at 3.16-17. In the biblical text/tradition the Day of

Atonement was centred largely in the tent of meeting, and then later transferred into the Jerusalem temple. But at 1 Cor. 3.16-17 Paul transfers the sacred precincts of the temple from its physical setting inJerusalem to the metaphysical 'precincts' of the community at Corinth.The Spirit-endowed community of Christ takes upon itself the servicethat once was centred in the physical shrine. 'Do you not know that youare God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?' (3.16). In thesame text Paul warns that no one will be permitted to destroy God'sholy temple, the community of the Spirit of Christ. 'If anyone destroysGod's temple, God will destroy that person. For God's temple is holy,and you are that temple' (3.17). The question is whether Paul is stillthinking in 'temple' categories when he reaches ch. 5. If he is, then thecase for a retextured presence of the atonement ritual of Leviticus 16 in1 Cor. 5.5 becomes even more likely. 61

Brian Rosner has made a strong case for viewing Paul's ideology of the temple in 3.16-17 as the most likely background to inform his censure and directive in ch. 5. 62 Rosner points especially to the holinesstraditionally associated with the temple precincts, which Paul thenadapts to the new community of the Spirit of Christ at Corinth in 3. 7. At ch. 5 Paul identifies an unholy member present in the community, God's holy temple, censures the community for admitting theimmoral man to fellowship, and calls for the ceremonial removal of theunholy member. Rosner, however, does not pick up the presence of theatonement texture of Leviticus 16 in 1 Corinthians 5, even though he

61. Ernst Ksemann classifies the language of 1 Cor. 3.17 and that of 5.5 bothas 'sentences of holy law'. The judgement and/or punishment is meted out in view


16/23


recognizes an allusion to the prohibition text of Lev. 18.8. If Paul'scensure and directive in ch. 5 really is informed by the temple ideology

of ch. 3, as Rosner argues so well, then Paul almost certainly has inmind the means by which the temple service of atonement rids Israel of its sins. The same riddance ritual of the Day of Atonement, centred inthe temple, Paul applies to the service of the new temple of God atCorinth. They are to remove the sin-bearing sacrifice from the temple(community) and hand it over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,

just as the priest led the sin-bearing sacrifice from the tent of meeting(and later from the temple of Jerusalem) and handed it over to Azazel.

The signal problem for Paul is that the incestuous man is a full participant in the sacramental fellowship of Christ. The man probably enteredthe community by baptism, and doubtless sat at the Lord's table. ^ From where the apostle Paul sits, the sacred service of the holy sanctuary of God's people is no place for an incestuous man. His presenceprofanes the sanctuary. No such person 'will inherit the kingdom of God' (6.10), as Paul maintains in the context that follows in ch. 6.Those incorporated into the holy temple of God in the Spirit of Christleft behind immorality, such as is the case in ch. 5: 'And this is whatsome of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you

were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God' (6.11). Conversely, as Collins points out, 'if they have defiledthe Spirit by, for example, sexual sins, the Spirit will be lost to thecommunity and they will be excluded from the kingdom of God'. 64

When the temple-community is profaned by accepting an immoralmember, it jeopardizes its future salvation in the day of the Lord. Butthe Christ-community has recourse, even as the Israelite community had with their Day of Atonement: the new temple-community can contain the sin in the one immoral man, remove him from their fellowship,and hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

63 On the sacramental significance of participation in the early Christian ritualsof baptism and the Lord's supper, see C F D Moule, Worship in the New Testament, (London Lutterworth Press, 1961), pp 18-60, also Ernst Kasemann, The


17/23


The Texts and Texture in Tradition

The modern idea of 'scapegoat' should not drive the argument one wayor another in reading Paul's text. Paul's allusion within his 'handing-over' text springs from his keen awareness of his Scripture. Moreover,'the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16 should be our starting point in anydiscussion of the scapegoat phenomenon', as Baruch Levine pointedout in his critique of Ren Girard's proposal of Job as scapegoat. 65 Thecommunity of Israel faced the problem of defilement in the land of promise, surrounded as it was by 'pagan' deities and practices. The

defilement entered places, institutions, persons and articles. The storyin Joshua 7 about Achan's withholding devoted objects from 'pagan'Jericho exemplifies the ancient belief about how a community becomesdefiled. Once defiled by 'pagan' sins, the community has to findrecourse to save itself and gain the Lord's favour. In the case of Achan,Joshua, with Israel, destroyed him to save the community (Josh. 7.25-26). Recognizing the contagious character of sin 'the religious community acts to contain the impurity by extracting it from places, objectsand persons contaminated by it'. 66 The 'extracting' is done by ritualceremony. Most prominent among the ceremonies in the priestly tradition of the Jewish Scriptures for containing and removing sin from thecommunity was the ritual of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement.

The ritual recorded in Leviticus 16, retained in two traditions, is quitestraightforward. Two goats were brought into the sanctuary, one for theLord and one for Azazel (Lev. 16.5-8). Goats were desert dwellinganimals, already impure even before they entered the sacred precincts.Once inside the courts, the contamination of the community 'is transferred t o . . . a goat .. . who is promptly removed from the settlement, andwhose return is prevented'. 67 One tradition at Lev. 16.10 reads, 'Thegoat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before theLord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into thewilderness to Azazel'. And the other tradition at vv. 21-22 reads,

Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, andconfess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all theirtransgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and

65. Baruch Levine, 'Ren Girard on Job: The Question of the Scapegoat',


18/23


19/23


with each strand confirming further Azazel's character as the mythicembodiment of evil in opposition to God. Lester Grabbe's illuminating

article on The Scapegoat Tradition'70

has brought to light ways inwhich Azazel became configured in numerous texts of the Jewish tradition. Each community in its turn seemed to have 'reshaped andreused' 71 the Priestly tradition in Leviticus 16 in terms of their own situation in life. In every text where this wilderness figure appears theimage is antagonistic to God, in the same way that the name Satan is inother texts.

Grabbe's investigation of the relevant literature in Judaism reveals afusion of Azazel of the scapegoat tradition with the fallen angel whostands in opposition to God. The textual evidence down to and including the period of Paul makes one important point: that Paul would havebeen acquainted with scapegoat traditions in Judaism in which the

figure of Azazel had become virtually synonymous with the name Satan.In 1 En. 6-11 the name Asael appears and, while the spelling is notexactly the same as Azazel, the image of the figure clearly resemblesAzazel of the atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. Both are wildernessfigures associated with sin and sin-bearing capacity. The final judgement of Asael of 1 Enoch will bring healing to the land. In the Qumran

Book of Giants (4QEn Giants a) the name Azazel, with the same spellingas that of Leviticus 16, is listed as head of the fallen angels. Otherevidence from Cave 4 at Qumran confirms (1) that Azazel had becomeidentified with the archenemy of God, and (2) that the writers had thewilderness figure of Leviticus 16 in mind. 72 In short, the description of

70. Lester Grabbe, The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation', JSJ 18/2 (1987), pp. 152-67.

71. Grabbe, 'Scapegoat Tradition', p. 152.72. Cf. the Apocalypse of Abraham, which probably post-dates Paul by a

number of years. Its tradition about Azazel, which may go back to the first half of the first century, confirms the notion in the earlier literature of Azazel as an evil,seducing, fallen angel. One passage reads, 'And it came to pass when I saw the birdspeaking I said this to the angel: "What is this, my lord?" And he said, "This is disgrace, this is Azazel!" And he said to him, "Shame on you, Azazel! For Abraham'sportion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected her, (and) becomeenamoured of the dwelling place of your blemish. Therefore the Eternal Ruler, theMighty One, has given you a dwelling on earth. Through you the all-evil spirit (is)


20/23


Azazel is 'similar to that given to the demonic leader(s) under thenames of Satan, Beliar, etc., in other texts'. 7^ Azazel is associated with

earth rather than heaven, impiety rather than righteousness, destructionrather than life. In these respects, moreover, the figure and function of Azazel in the prevailing Jewish tradition down to Paul's time corresponds remarkably with the flesh (cf. earth), impiety and destructionassociated with Satan in Paul's injunction in 1 Cor. 5.5.

Uncritical use of the Mishnah to prove a point about Paul is suspect,since 'the Mishnah represents the thinking of Jewish sages whoflourished in the middle of the second century'. 74 At the same time, thetemple traditions recorded in the Mishnah came down to those sagesfrom the previous century in which Paul lived, when the temple rituals

were still functioning. 7S On this ground one may reasonably cite thecentral elements of the scapegoat ritual from the Mishnah to confirmthe re-texturing of Leviticus 16 in 1 Cor. 5.5.

The Mishnah tractate Yoma is devoted entirely to the annual ritual of atonement conducted in the Temple of Jerusalem prior its destruction in70 CE. The part about the scapegoat is particularly relevant to the present discussion. There were two goats (3.9); two lots were cast in a box marked Tor the Lord' and Tor Azazel' (4.1); the High Priest 'tied acrimson thread on the head of the goat which was to be sent forth'(4.2); he lays his two hands on the goat to be sent forth and makesconfession of 'the iniquities, transgressions, and sins' of himself andthe 'holy people' (4.2, 6.2); he handed over the scapegoat to the one who was to lead it out (6.3); the appointed person led the goat to adistant ravine (6.4); he divided the crimson thread, half tied to a rock

of ungodliness" '(136-11) (translation from OTP, I)73 Grabbe, 'Scapegoat Tradition', 157 Beliar appears in the disputed

Pauline text of 2 Cor 6 14-7 1 in direct opposition to Christ The origin of thisfragment some scholars locate in Qumran, so Joseph A Fitzmyer, 'Qumran and theInterpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6 14-7 , in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London Geoffrey Chapman, 1971), pp 205-17 Cf G Caird, 'Satan' , in L D Hurst (ed ), New Testament Theology (Oxford ClarendonPress, 1994), pp 107-11

74 Jacob Neusner, 'Introduction', in The Mishnah A New Translation (New

Haven Yale University Press, 1988), xvi75 Neusner does go on to say that the group of second-century sages would


21/23


and half to the horns of the goat, and pushed the goat over the ravine whence it 'broke into pieces' (6.6); the people reported to the highpriest that the goat had reached the wilderness (6.8). At that point thesins of the people were successfully removed from the sanctified community. This text, whether from the second century or the first, carriesforward the same purpose and the same basic ritual found in Leviticus16. There can be little doubt that Paul was well acquainted with theessential purpose of the scapegoat ritual. Of course, that in itself doesnot establish the case for Paul's retexturing of Leviticus 16 in the textof 1 Cor. 5.5. But it does help confirm the strong likelihood of thisritual background to Paul's severe injunction over any other. 76

To summarize, Leviticus 16 is the primary text informing Paul 'sritual text of 1 Cor. 5.5, as it was for the ritual instructions of the Jerusalem priests, reflected in the Mishnah. Paul's allusion in his sacrallanguage would also carry overtones of the scapegoat tradition widespread in Judaism of Paul's time, with which he would have beencompletely familiar. His use of Satan rather than Azazel is understandable. He has reconstituted the old tradition into the texture of his text,and thence into the new community at Corinth. And in any case the

names Azazel and Satan (as also Beliar) as opponents of God appear tohave been interchangeable at the time of Paul. Above all, though, thecentral purpose of the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16, to rid the community of its evil contamination, would come to expression spontaneously in Paul's retexturing, given the situation of communal sindescribed in 1 Corinthians 5.

The textual 'tapestry' 77 that emerges is as follows. The particular case of immorality at Corinth, namely incest, triggers the prohibition

text of Lev. 18.8 (cf. 20.11; Deut. 23.1; 27.20). On this point mostscholars agree. 78 The phrase 'living with his father's wife' (

76. A post-70 tradition of R. Ishmael confirms further that the scapegoat ritual was singularly the one for the cleansing of the community: 'There was a crimsonthread tied to the door of the sanctuary. When the goat had reached the wilderness,the thread would turn white, as it says, Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall beas white as snow' (Yom. 6.8). In other later rabbinic traditions the scapegoat isdestroyed by a supernatural power, and in still others Azazel is again associated

with the story of the fallen angels. For references, see Grabbe, 'Scapegoat Tradition', pp. 159-60.


22/23


23/23

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

1 Cor 5.5 - Atonement Texture