In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
First, Paul says in verse 9 and 10 that you can’t avoid people who have the traits he’s discussing completely. To do that you’d have to take yourself out of the world entirely. So clearly the interactions with an unrepentant brother would not amount to total avoidance. The instruction is exactly the same as the final result Jesus laid out in Matthew chapter 18, “let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector”. (Matt. 18:17)
This is obvious from verse 11 where he says to “stop keeping company with anyone called a “brother” who is practicing those things. The very same word for “stop keeping company” [sunanamignusthai] is used here as well.
Regarding this word, Vincent’s Word Studies states:
“To company (συναναμίγνυσθαι)
Only here and 2 Thessalonians 3:14. The translation company is inadequate, but cannot perhaps be bettered. The word is compounded of σύν together, ἀνά up and down among, and, μίγνυμι to mingle. It denotes, therefore, not only close, but habitual, intercourse.” (Vincent’s Word Studies)
Jesus did not completely avoid non-Jews and tax collectors, but neither did he make it a habit to fraternize with them or show approval of their lifestyle. Hence, Paul’s instructions would be the same for how the congregation should deal with persons who, although unrepentantly continuing to carry on obscene conduct, desire to remain in the congregation. He is not establishing a new procedure beyond what Jesus stated.
Paul is not discussing a person that has committed a sin or even engaged in it a few times in the past and has now ceased. There was no need for those who became aware of it to determine whether or not there was sufficient repentance. It was obvious the man was continuing to practice this sin and was refusing to accept counsel and stop.
However, even if it were a case of the man committing a sin, according to Jesus instructions, it was to be brought to his attention first in private, then two or more witnesses would be brought along to reprove him. If he then refused to listen, he would then be viewed as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)
Note, Jesus did not say that he should be expelled from the congregation, similar to the Jewish practice of expulsion from the synagogue. (John 9:22)
Even the Watchtower society recognizes the severe hardship that such a practice caused:
Such cutting off of fellowship from other Jews would have severe social and economic consequences for the family. (Jesus The Way, The Truth, The Life chap. 71 pg. 168 par. 1)
Once remove from close association with members of the congregation, how did Paul say they should deal with him? Obviously, he would be dealt with in the same way as other sexually immoral people of the world he previously spoke about. He would stop keeping company with him but not entirely. (1 Cor. 5:10) As with other non-Christians there would be need for some limited contact. But close fellowship that would give the impression of acceptance of his immoral lifestyle would be avoided. Paul says nothing about refusing to say a greeting to such a one. If while shopping we were to meet a former brother who we had stopped associating with because we knew him to be a drunkard or a fornicator, we could not appeal to Paul’s words to justify not saying hello, or asking him how he had been faring. No reasonable person would take that for keeping company with him.
The NICNT comments:
“I wrote[1] you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” At first blush this sounds a bit harsh, and one might well understand why the Corinthians had trouble with it. The key, however, lies in the verb “to associate with” and Paul’s previous use of it in 2Th 3:14 with regard to the idlers/busybodies. The verb literally means to “mix up together”; in the context of social intercourse it means to “mingle with,” or “associate with” in a close way.[2] In 2 Thessalonians this prohibition occurred only as a last resort; that is, if the idlers/busybodies did not give heed to what was now a second warning (cf. 1Th 4:11-12; 1Th 5:14), they were to be shunned in terms of close fellowship in the believing community. But even so, he added that they are not to be treated as enemies, but as family (brothers and sisters). Most likely that is what Paul had intended in his former letter to Corinth, a letter written not too long after 2 Thessalonians.
In this light, Paul was addressing how to deal with a person who was still regarded as a Christian brother. Though still a member of the congregation, he was to be treated as an outsider.
This shows that the only difference between his counsel to the Corinthians and that given to the Thessalonians is that in Corinth a specific person and incident was ongoing and the congregation had not followed through. Although removed from close fellowship, in both congregations they were each still to be regarded as a brother.
When a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses has been disfellowshipped, the following announcement is read from the platform:
“[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” (Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry pg. 151 par. 29)
Since Paul’s exhortation had to do with how to deal with one still considered to be a Christian brother, it would appear that the Watchtower society’s policy is out of harmony with his instruction.
[1] [Gk. ἔγραψα. This must be a true aorist, not an epistolary aorist as in 1Co 5:11. The νῦν in 1Co 5:11, plus the prepositional phrase τῇ ἐπιστολῇ in this sentence, makes that clear. The English perfect in the NIV, “I have written,” defies explanation. Unfortunately it allows that they may not yet have received that communication. Everything in the chapter argues otherwise.]
[2] [Gk. συναναμίγνυσθαι; cf. Hos 7:8 and Philo, Mos. 1.278.]