Abstract
Previous scholarship on 1 Corinthians 5.1–5 has primarily used parallels from the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM) and curse formulae (defixiones) to understand Paul’s instructions about delivering a sexually immoral man over to Satan. This paper diverges from such an approach, instead looking at apotropaism in Second Temple Jewish literature and a parallel found in the Damascus Document that concerns a man excommunicated from the community due to sin done while in a state of spirit-possession. Obedience is often viewed in Second Temple Judaism as a method for repelling evil spirits and Paul seems to adopt a similar view. Additionally, the author(s) of the Damascus Document differentiate(s) between states of disobedience and apostasy. While apostasy incurs the death penalty, disobedience to Sabbath observance results in excommunication with the hope of remediation back into the community. Paul too seems to accept this dichotomy between apostasy and disobedience, but remediation is not possible for the sexually immoral man. Rather, his death serves to protect the spirit of the community from moral degradation and the ongoing threat of hostile spiritual forces.
Introduction
Having heard news of an incestuous relationship in Corinth, Paul instructs the ekklēsia there to have the man involved ‘removed’ (1 Cor. 5.13; ἐξάρατε) from among them and to ‘hand this man over (παραδοῦναι) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός), so that the spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα) may be saved (σωθῇ) in the day of the Lord’ (1 Cor. 5.5). 1 This strange passage has naturally given rise to many differing interpretations. 2 Hans von Campenhausen (1969: 134), for example, believes that Paul is speaking generally about excommunication. Others have convincingly argued that the ‘spirit’ to be saved is not the individual’s human spirit, but the Holy Spirit of the community. 3 Still others have read it to mean that the individual is physically killed by governing authorities (Derrett 1979: 11–30) or that Satan is the active agent by whom the person is brought to repentance or destroyed (Käsemann 1969: 71; Barrett 1968: 126–27). One scholar goes as far as to refer to it as a ‘penal miracle’ (von Dobschutz 1904: 46). Significant debate around what is meant by σαρκός in this passage also exists. Thiselton (2000: 384, 400) translates the phrase ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός as ‘destruction of the fleshly’, taking a metaphorical view of σαρκός as the individual’s sinful inclinations. South (1992: 43–71) typifies a common approach by stating that the passage refers to ‘putting him outside the sphere of God’s protection within the ekklēsia, and leaving him exposed to the satanic forces of evil in hope that the experience would cause him to repent and return to the fellowship of the ekklēsia. The “flesh” to be destroyed is thus not his physical body…’ (1992: 43). 4 In addition to 1 Cor. 5.1–5, another parallel instance involves two men named Hymenaeus and Alexander who are ‘turned over (παρέδωκα) to Satan’ so that they ‘may learn not to blaspheme’ (1 Tim. 1.20). Paul’s audience must have been familiar with the meaning of his command, which suggests that this may not have only been an ecclesiastical procedure, but a concept that existed within the wider Jewish and Greco-Roman world. What, then, does Paul envision?
Some scholars have looked to examples from the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM) and curse formulae (defixiones) for parallels to Paul’s instructions (Smith 2008:114–80; Nasrallah 2021: 347–67). 5 Very little has been done, however, to connect this instruction with relevant Qumran material. 6 Although many efforts have been made to situate most of Paul’s beliefs within his first century Jewish framework, one topic that has been relatively neglected is Paul’s apotropaic beliefs. One is struck, for example, that Guy Williams’ monograph The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle only mentions the word ‘apotropaic’ four times, none of which are in the context of Paul’s own views on apotropaism (2009: 253, 255–56, 276). One text that deserves careful attention as a parallel to 1 Cor. 5.1–5 and 1 Tim. 1.20 is the Damascus Document (CD). CD XII, 2–6 introduces a scenario in which a community member is removed because of Belial’s spirits dominating him, along with a series of instructions on what to do should the person be healed from their spiritual affliction. I argue that CD XII, 2–6 gives a glimpse into the covenantal understanding of apotropaism that existed in Judaism and how it may have influenced Paul’s own sense of authority to remove members from the ekklēsia.
Paul did not actively promote the use of ritual objects such as amulets in his writings as a means of apotropaism. 7 As Acts 19.11–12 attests, however, this did not deter others from making use of such objects. Yet, Paul shares another common motif found among Second Temple Jewish writings, that is, that the covenant and obedience to God’s commands initiate and maintain an apotropaic effect (Bohak 2008: 64, 368). 8 For Paul, apotropaism is rooted in faith in Jesus Christ, access to the assembly of believers, and obedience to the gospel message that he taught. Despite the object of faith shifting from purely the God of Israel to Jesus Christ, I argue that Paul is engaging in theological rhetoric related to covenant, obedience, and apotropaism that is shared among other Second Temple Jewish thinkers. For Paul, access to the covenant community is contingent on obedience and access to this community is synonymous with having God’s protection against evil spirits. Disobedience consequently jeopardizes this apotropaic benefit because it threatens community membership. Despite this, Paul also suggests that spiritual affliction in the context of discipline outside of the ekklēsia serves a remedial function.
The man being handed over to Satan, I argue, means that he is literally killed by Satan and that the spirit of the community is thus ‘saved’ in the dual sense that it is protected from further moral degradation and influence by hostile spiritual powers and, as a result, the community reaps eschatological rewards typical of Second Temple Judaism because it has expunged evil from its ranks, similar to what one finds in Qumran literature.
The Covenant as Apotropaic
Although the term ‘apotropaism’ is typically used in reference to ritual objects such as amulets or to prayers, songs, or other ritual tactics used to defend against evil, the word can be used more generally to refer to protection allotted by being part of a protected community or group. Several scholars have demonstrated that the covenant community, demonology, and apotropaism at Qumran are interrelated at a number of liturgical, rhetorical, and practical levels. Joseph Angel (2012: 1–27), for example, argues that apotropaism in Songs of the Sage (4Q510–4Q511) works because of the community’s transformed mind, formed through recitation and hearing the songs. Likewise, Andrew Krause (2014: 25–39) suggests that 4QIncantation (4Q444) and Songs of the Sage should be connected with God’s election of his people among other tactics. Miryam T. Brand (2015: 77–92) notes that the demonological rhetoric of the Community Rule (1QS) and Damascus Document enforces boundaries between insiders and outsiders, aiding in continued obedience to the sect’s rules, and Cecilia Wassen (2017: 71–97) points out that the presence of angels and demons in texts at Qumran is tied in with identity formation, arguing that the community acts as a kind of temple that repels evil. Finally, Charlotte Hempel (2020b: 131–54) draws together a number of instances in the manuscript tradition of the Community Rule, especially the final hymn found in 1QS, that points towards obedience, covenant, and apotropaism being linked. Hempel (2020b:153–154) concludes that the Qumran community ‘is portrayed as establishing a clear rhetorical boundary between its members and those who pursue evil’, so that ‘the blending of divinely mandated conduct and paying emphatic liturgical homage to God and His power ensures members could feel safe within the bounded community’. 9 Thus, referring to community membership as ‘apotropaic’ makes sense as both negative spiritual influences and disobedience are deterred.
Indeed, one of the ways in which evil spirits were thought to be thwarted in the Dead Sea Scrolls was through God’s covenant with Israel. God was understood to have imparted a new spiritual disposition to those who repented and joined the covenant community. 10 According to the Qumran sectarian texts, the community understood themselves as the recipients (both presently and eschatologically) of a new spiritual disposition towards holiness, commonly referred to as the ‘Spirit of Holiness’. 11 By entering the community, individual members were understood to come under a principle of obedience that facilitated their capacity to properly adhere to God’s laws as interpreted by the community’s leadership. 12 According to some texts, this principal of obedience had the added benefit of apotropaism.
The Community Rule situates the formation of the covenant within a wider cosmological battle between Belial, his spiritual lot, and the community’s members (referred to as the ‘sons of light’; 1QS I, 1–24). 13 Upon one’s entry into the community, the priests petition God to ‘protect you from everything bad’ (1QS II, 3), a general apotropaic blessing. 14 In the work Miqṣat maʿaśe ha-Torah (4QMMT), which appears to be a sectarian letter 15 sent to explain dissimilarities with regard to various points of Torah interpretation between the sect and another Jewish group, the recipient of the letter is encouraged to petition God to ‘strengthen’ or ‘make straight’ the audience’s עצת (‘will/counsel/plan’) so that they might be obedient (4QMMT C 28–29). 4QMMT C 29 further requests God to remove the ‘plans of evil’ (מחשב(ו)ת רעה) and the עצ̇ת of Belial. The author of the letter states that those who ‘feared [the To]rah’ (ירא̇[ את … התו]ר̇ה), also referred to as the ‘see[k]ers of Torah’ (מ֯ב֯[ק]שי תורה̇) were ‘saved from troubles’ (מצו̇ל[]מצרו̇ת; 11–13, 7), which may suggest that access to the true covenantal group’s interpretation of the law was necessary for apotropaic protection as well. 16
The Damascus Document likewise demonstrates a connection between covenant, obedience, and apotropaism. The covenantal act of circumcision, for example, plays a role in keeping one safe from the angel Mastema. 17 According to CD XVI, 4–6 returning to the law of Moses and obedience to God’s commands will cause the angel Mastema to ‘turn aside from following him’ (מאחריו …יסור). To ‘return to the Law of Moses’ (XVI, 4–5) in the Damascus Document means to ‘enrol him with the oath of the covenant’ (XV, 8). 18 Covenant and apotropaism are thus interlocked at a fundamental level. Indeed, language centred around the formation of a covenant or oath is used in apotropaic formulas from the ancient world (Krause 2019: 58–75). According to a seventh century BCE Phoenician inscription, for example, various deities are barred from entering a particular household, presumably to harm the individual, because ‘the Eternal One has made a covenant with us’ (Cross 1970: 42–49). Similarly, in the Aaronic Blessing found in Num. 6.24–26, the priests bless the Israelites so that ‘they shall put’ God’s ‘name on the Israelites’ and he ‘will bless them’ (6.27). The benediction facilitates God’s activity of continual blessing, part of which is protection (שמר), which was later interpreted as protection from evil spirits. 19
Obedience as Apotropaic
In addition to general covenant membership, obedience is often connected to apotropaism at Qumran in such a way that the efficacy of protection is determined by the individual’s moral conduct. In CD XVI, 4–6, for example, Mastema will only stay away ‘should he keep his [God’s] words’ (אם יקים את דבריו), insinuating that obedience to God’s law is what both enacts and maintains the apotropaic effect. Similarly, according to T. Benj. 5.2, doing ‘what is good’ (ἀγαθοποιοῦντες) will cause ‘unclean spirits’ (ἀκάθαρτα πνεύματα) to flee. 20 In the apotropaic Songs of the Sage, obedience is also insinuated as part of the requirement for the hymns being effective. According to 4Q510 1 9, for example, the Maskil says that his songs are ‘for the upright’ (ולישרים) and ‘all those of perfect behavior’ (כ[ו]ל תמימי֯ דרך). The righteous are also labelled as ‘those who [kee]p the way of God and his [h]oly pat[h]’ (4Q511 2 I, 6) and they are expected to ‘walk [in] the lot of God’ and ‘serve’ him (4Q511 2 I, 9–10). 21
In an apotropaic petition from the book of Jubilees, obedience also seems to be one of the reasons why evil spirits are warded away. According to Jub. 10.3–6, Noah reminds God that he acted mercifully towards him and to remember this reason why he should repel the demons afflicting his grandchildren. 22 The reason God was merciful to Noah in the flood is that he had not ‘corrupted [his] way’ and ‘because his heart was righteous in all of his ways just as it was commanded concerning him. And he did not transgress anything which was ordained for him’ (Jub. 5.19). This declaration about Noah’s righteous nature occurs within the same passage where God is said to impart a new righteous nature on humanity so that they might not sin (Jub. 5.12–19). 23 One of the reasons Noah believes God should repel the demons is that, according to Jub. 6.10–18, he and his children made an oath to obey the laws God commanded them and so God ought to sustain them in this endeavour. God listens to Noah’s prayer, presumably because of his righteous character, and tells the angels to instruct him about the apotropaic function of herbs. The reason the knowledge of herbs is given to Noah and subsequently passed on to his children is stated as being that ‘they would not walk uprightly and would not strive righteously’ (Jub. 10.10). Jub. 6.18 tells the audience that after Noah died, his children corrupted the covenant and ate blood. The reason the herbs were given is that God knew that his children would continue in sin (Cf. 4Q213 3+4 6–12). 24
The connection between obedience and apotropaism can be seen throughout Second Temple Jewish texts, suggesting that this was a common view of how to protect oneself from evil. While Jews made use of ritual objects, prayers, and other means for warding off evil, the central tenet is that it is the God of Israel who provided this divine protection.
Apostasy and Sin in the Damascus Document
Two manuscripts of a sectarian text known as the Damascus Document were first discovered in a storeroom of a Qara’ite synagogue in 1896. Solomon Schechter published the two manuscripts in 1910 under the title Fragments of a Zadokite Work, based on the recurring phrase ‘sons of Zadok’ in the text. Fragments of the Damascus Document have also been found at Qumran (4Q266–4Q273; 5Q12; 6Q15). The earliest manuscript, 4QDa (4Q266), dates to around the first half of or the middle of the first century BCE.
25
The text consists of two major sections commonly referred to as ‘exhortations/admonitions’ (1–8; 19–20) and ‘laws’ (9–16). The passage under consideration, CD XII, 2–6, reads as follows: Every /man/ over whom the spirits of Belial dominate, and who preaches apostasy, will be judged according to the regulation of the necromancer or the diviner. But everyone who goes astray, defiling the sabbath and the festivals, shall not be executed, for it is the task of men to guard him; and if he is cured of it, they shall guard him for seven years and afterwards he may enter the assembly.
This passage gives instructions for a person who is under the influence of, or is possessed by, Belial’s spirits. 26 Two scenarios are imagined. In the first case, the individual who ‘preaches apostasy’ 27 (ודבר סרה) must be put to death according to the laws concerning divination in Lev. 20.27. The second case deals with the person disregarding various calendrical observations. In this latter scenario, the individual is not to be killed, but simply removed from the assembly. This naturally raises the question of why the death penalty found in Exod. 31.15 does not apply. 28 There are a number of possible reasons why this legal interpretation might have been put in place. One explanation for why the member is not executed as per the instructions of Exodus is that the individual’s spirit-possession was viewed as compromising their normative cognitive functioning. As a result, the community was more lenient 29 to the possessed individual and did not regard him as intentionally disobeying the law. 30 Another possibility is that, regardless of whether the spirit-possessed person who preaches apostasy is in his right mind or not, punishment for attempting to pull away covenant members from following God must be enacted in order to protect other sectarians. According to this interpretation, the possessed individual’s vocal cords may presumably be the means by which the spirit communicates their apostatizing utterances (cf. Mk 1.21–28; 5.1–20; 9.14–29; Acts 16.16–18; 19.13–17; Vit. Apoll. 3.38). 31 Lastly, part of the reason why the individual is not to be executed for breaking calendrical celebrations is because it is the ‘task of men to guard him’ (כי על בני האדם משמרו; CD XII, 4–5). The men mentioned may refer to general sectarian members or high-ranking officials. Failure of the possessed person to reintegrate into the community and be obedient to the sect’s laws may be a negative reflection on the men of the community more than the possessed individual.
CD XII, 5 offers a further scenario, namely that the spirit-possessed person may be cured (ירפא) of his affliction. After being removed from the assembly, the member was prohibited from certain sectarian rituals and activities. Thus, the protection allotted through covenant membership is jeopardized, as is his ability to maintain faithful obedience, doubling his risk of further spiritual affliction. It is unclear how the covenant member originally became spirit-possessed, though legal infringements may have been blamed. Since the healing is only a hypothetical potential, we must assume that some instances of this punishment ended with the sectarian either completely leaving the community behind, or potentially death or destitution. Brand (2013: 228) interprets the healing to mean that the sectarian ‘realizes the error of his ways’. In this case, repentance is offered as a means to enter the assembly again.
The Damascus Document’s diverse rulings find a parallel in another text from Qumran. According to 4Q375, a prophet who ‘rises up to preach [apostasy] to you [to make] you [tu]rn from God shall die’ (I, 4–5). However, 4Q375 I, 5–II, 9, gives a legal ruling for the hypothetical case of a prophet who is accused of preaching apostasy and is then defended by his community. Such special cases may help explain why different criteria are given for the spirit-possessed person’s activities. 32 The existence of such unique situations at Qumran suggests that disobedience and apostasy were not always conflated. Indeed, disobeying community laws did not always result in permanent removal from the community or death, but could result in temporary restrictions from rituals and rations. 33 Such a dichotomy is important for understanding Paul’s instructions as well.
The New Covenant and Apotropaic Rhetoric
Some of the apotropaic passages analysed above concerning covenant, obedience, and the new spiritual disposition draw their inspiration from the Hebrew Bible, especially Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. In Ezekiel, God states he will ‘sprinkle clean water upon you’ (Ezek. 36.25), give his people a ‘new heart’ and a ‘new spirit’ (Ezek. 36.26), and put his own Spirit within them (Ezek. 36.27) so that they are able to obey his commandments. For the writer of the Community Rule, this purification by water and the resultant obedience is framed as an eschatological exorcism (1QS IV, 20–21). Jesus refers to this new spiritual disposition as being ‘born of the Spirit’ (Jn 3.8; cf. Tit. 3.5). In the New Testament, this New Covenant is thought to be ratified by the death and resurrection of Jesus (Lk. 22.20; 1 Cor. 11.25; Heb. 9.15) and for Paul it is a covenant ‘of spirit’ (πνεύματος; 2 Cor. 3.6).
For Paul, this New Covenant grants a new spiritual disposition as well. Thus, he can say of the Corinthians that God’s Spirit has written on their hearts (2 Cor. 3.3) and that those who are still ‘veiled’ by the Mosaic Covenant have their minds ‘blinded’ by the ‘god of this world’ (2 Cor. 4.3–4). For Paul, then, being outside of the covenant allows for one to be manipulated by demonic powers which actively keeps them from accessing the covenant community (2 Cor. 4.4). Similarly, in the Damascus Document, people are saved from the destruction of Belial by entering the ‘covenant of conversion’ (CD XIX, 16; בברית תשובה). Such apotropaic rhetoric of the covenant’s function can also be found in Ephesians. There, those outside the covenant follow the ‘ruler of the power of the air’ (Eph. 2.2) which is connected with following one’s base desires (cf. Jub. 1.11–12). Yet, in the covenant, God supplants the individual into the ‘heavenly places’ (Eph. 2.6), a zone where such spiritual afflictions are absent.
Despite Thiselton’s confidence that ‘the salvific purposes embrace both the community and the man’ (2000: 397), he concedes that ‘this makes the translation of τὸ πνεῦμα difficult’ (2000: 397). He thus concludes that ‘Only the exegetical context can determine the semantic boundaries and reference of πνεῦμα here’ (2000: 397). Yet, it is surprising that he does not deal with the relevant primary texts when reconstructing Paul’s original meaning, other than by citing them in a list. Indeed, evil spirits often attempt to kill those who do not obey covenantal imperatives. Jubilees states that ‘impure demons began to mislead Noah’s grandchildren, to make them act foolishly, and to destroy them’ (Jub. 10.1). That the demons attempt to first mislead Noah’s grandchildren suggests that their destruction was contingent on lapses in moral aptitude. Indeed, this appears to be the case in the apotropaic petition given by Noah in Jub. 10.3: ‘may the wicked spirits not rule them in order to destroy them from the earth’ (emphasis added). Elsewhere, Mastema sends ravens to eat the seeds planted by humanity in order that they might ‘destroy’ the land and its inhabitants (Jub. 11.11) and to kill Moses on his way to Egypt (Jub. 48.2), a reference to Exod. 4.18–31 and Moses’s mistake of not circumcising his son (cf. Jub. 49.2). In Testament of Benjamin, the patriarch instructs his children to ‘keep His [God’s] commandments’, noting that those who are faithful to God will not be ‘afflicted’ (θλίψεως) or ‘smitten’ (πληγῆναι) by Beliar or his spirits (3.1–4). In the Qumran sectarian texts as well, evil forces will destroy the wicked (1QS IV, 14; CD II, 6; IV, 13). Confusingly, Thiselton argues that despite these examples, ‘this is by no means an essential feature of this agency, nor perhaps a systematic or a central one’ (2000: 398). The fact that such examples do exist should call into question his conclusion that Paul could not therefore be drawing on such connections.
The idea of spiritual forces at work against those outside the covenant is not simply a feature of the Qumran texts, but is also present within the Pauline corpus. The logical corollary is that both the refusal to enter the covenant and removal from the covenant community both result in the possibility of demonic influence.
Apostasy and Apotropaism in Paul
Wilson (2004: 22) defines ‘defector’ and ‘apostate’ as ‘those who considered themselves, or were considered by others, to have abandoned the main practices and/or beliefs of their religious community, in extreme cases even turning against it’, though he admits that the term ‘apostasy’ ‘has acquired a more heavily religious or theological flavor’ due to later Jewish-Christian polemics (Wilson 2004: 3). In the Hebrew Bible, the terms typically translated as ‘apostasy’ and ‘apostate’ (מְשׁוּבָה / מְשֻׁבָה) are used in contexts of worshiping other gods and defecting from the covenant agreement to worship only the God of Israel and obey his laws (Jer. 2.19; 3.22; 5.6; 8.5; 14.7; Hos. 11.7; 14.5; cf. Deut. 7.3–4; 13.1–11). 34 The adoption of foreign customs in exchange for Jewish ancestral traditions, especially evident during the Hellenization recorded in 1 Maccabees, is a typical example of apostasy during the Second Temple Period: ‘The king’s officers who were enforcing the apostasy (ἀποστασίαν) came to the town of Modein to make them offer sacrifice’ (2.15). 35 Philo speaks of ‘the rebels from the holy laws’ (Virt. 182) and those who ‘debased the coinage’ of their ‘noble birth’ (Praem. 152), an allusion to Jews who abandoned Jewish customs. This latter passage by Philo concludes that such people will be ‘carried into Tartarus’. According to the Temple Scroll: ‘If a man passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he will die’ (11QTa 64.6–8).
Various New Testament texts also speak of the problem of apostasy (ἀπόστασις, ἀποστασία, and the related term ἀϕίστημι) and include being deceived by counterfeit Christs (Mk 13.5–6), worshipping lawless deceivers (2 Thess. 2.1–12), becoming tangled up in strange or tertiary teachings (1 Tim. 1.3–11), denying certain Christological beliefs (1 Jn 2.18–25), and engaging in licentious and sinful behaviours (2 Pet. 2.1–22; 3.17). This final example of apostasy is explicitly laid out by the author of Hebrews (3.12; 6.4–6). Apostasy is sometimes depicted using the language of turning away (ἀπέρχομαι) from God. This idea is certainly drawn from the Hebrew שׁוּב. Thus, some of Jesus’s disciples are said to have turned (ἀπῆλθον) from following him (Jn 6.66). Elsewhere, alienation from God stems from ignorance, stubbornness, and the pursuit of vices (Eph. 4.18). Apostasy of members of the ekklēsiai could have included defection from apostolic teaching or embracing false teachers/teaching. Paul himself is considered as supporting a form of apostasy in Acts 21.21: ‘They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake (ἀποστασίαν) Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs’. ‘Forsaking Moses’ seems to be a euphemistic way of saying that the commands of the Torah, the lifestyle of Judaism, are what Paul is instructing people to forsake. 36
The words used by Paul in 1 Cor. 5 likely signalled in the minds of his first audience the extant and method by which this punishment would take form. 37 The verb παραδίδωμι used in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is used elsewhere in the context of spiritual forces. In an exorcism found among the Greek Magical Papyri, for example, the ‘God of Abraham’, ‘Jesus Chrestos’, and ‘the Holy Spirit’ are called upon to cast out a daimon by saying ‘I deliver (παραδίδωμί) you into the black chaos in perdition’ (PGM IV, 1230–1247; cf. PGM V, 120–132). 38 Thus, the connection between removing the sinner and handing them over to spiritual forces makes sense both within Paul’s Jewish context and the wider world of Greco-Roman magic, with which his audience was possibly familiar.
Paul’s reason for removing the sinful individual from the ekklēsia is that their behaviour will spread to others (1 Cor. 5.6). This seems to be the same logic behind why the Damascus Document commands death for the one preaching apostasy. 39 As a result of this removal, the apotropaic protection allotted as a benefit of the community is also removed, allowing Satan access to physically harm or harass them. This reading of 1 Cor. 5.1–5 is similar to what can be found in the portion of the Damascus Document reviewed above and the general understanding of apotropaic protection allotted by the covenant elsewhere in Second Temple Jewish literature. The unnamed man in 1 Corinthians was thought to be a Christ-follower in a state of disobedience, but seemingly not in a state of abject apostasy. The remedy in this case is to hand the individual over to Satan. 40
In the case of the sexually immoral man in 1 Cor. 5, reintegration into the community is not in view at all. Rather, Paul hopes for the eschatological hope of the spirit of the community through Satan’s intervention. In the Damascus Document, a person who preaches apostasy will be put to death by the community itself. Yet, the spirit-possessed person may also die outside of the community should they not be healed. For Paul, however, it is explicitly Satan who does the killing as a means to facilitate eschatological salvation before the community enters a state of outright apostasy in which they forfeit this benefit.
Paul, Spirit(s), and Authority
One further avenue for understanding Paul’s instructions here may be illuminated by the emphasis on spirit-possession and spirit phenomena more generally in the Corinthian ekklēsia. 41 Tibbs (2016) demonstrates that the Greek phrase ἐν πνεύματι used in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere likely refers to a state of spirit-possession. 42 1 Cor. 12.3, for example, states that ‘no one speaking ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ’. Likewise, in the Didache instructions are given on discerning between true and false prophets using the phrase ἐν πνεύματι throughout. 43 A similar phrase is used by Mark in his description of the demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue: ‘And immediately there was in their synagogue a man ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ’ (Mk 1.23). 44
Mount (2005: 316) argues that ‘[t]he form of early Christianity associated with Paul can be characterized as a spirit-possession cult’ with Corinth being a prime example. He suggests that Paul’s authority ought to be viewed in terms of him being a ‘spirit master’ (2005: 328), reflected in Paul’s heavenly journeys (2 Cor. 12.2), ability to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14.18), other miraculous feats (2 Cor. 12.12), and the presence of trance-states (Acts 22.17; Mount 2005: 321). He briefly attempts to connect this proliferation of spirit phenomena in Corinth with Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 5, which he describes as a ‘ritual execution “in the Spirit” carried out by members of the community’ (Mount 2005: 323 n. 35). He therefore concludes that spirit-possession grants ‘power to reimagine a broader social-cosmological context’ and the ability to ‘exclude individuals from the community of those possessed by the spirit that shelters them from sin and death in this world’ (Mount 2005: 323). Similarly, Bazzana (2020: 142), drawing on Collins (1980), takes a collectivist sense of πνεῦμα in 1 Cor. 5.5 and argues that ‘the apostle’s concern is primarily for the preservation of the πνεῦμα, which is very concretely and very materially present in the group’. Eyl (2019: 144–69) examines Paul’s claims to divine authority based on his various ‘magical’, ‘divinatory’, and ‘wonderworking’ feats. 45 She argues that Paul’s methodology of speaking of ‘wondrous powers’ is not unique to Corinth, but is also present in 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans (Eyl 2019: 116), which suggests that spirit phenomena like that mentioned by Mount (2005) was typical. That Paul’s name (Acts 19:13–14) and objects that had come into contact with him (Acts 19:11–12) were being used for exorcistic purposes may have further contributed to the Corinthians perceiving Paul as a ‘divinatory specialist’ (Eyl 2019: 167) who had control of the spiritual realm and thus was able to administer judicial ruling within that sphere.
In light of these findings, Paul’s instructions as a ‘spirit master’ or ‘divinatory specialist’ to the ekklēsia make sense from an apotropaic vantage point. Access to the ekklēsia is viewed as access to the place where the Spirit resides and works. Additionally, following the teachings of an expert wonderworker and emulating his anti-demonic tactics, especially ethical standards (1 Cor. 5.1–5; 11.27–32), within the ekklēsia further enhanced the boundaries between the Corinthian believers and the hostile spiritual powers of the world.
Conclusion
I have argued that the Damascus Document is a better parallel for understanding Paul’s instructions than the Greek Magical Papyri and curse formulae previously consulted. Paul draws on several apotropaic concepts found in Second Temple Judaism and the wider Greco-Roman world to instruct the Corinthian ekklēsia on how to deal with those who are found sinning, but not in a state of apostasy. The lack of community membership, alongside separation from the covenant community, facilitates spiritual attack. The absence of such apotropaic protection likely acted as an incentive for maintaining obedience to the ekklēsia’s ethics. Persistent sin by those in the community was seen as a threat to the community’s moral ethos and, as a result, removal was necessary. That Satan is the agent through which the spirit of the community reaps eschatological rewards and ongoing protection, however, makes sense given Paul’s apotropaic heritage in the Second Temple Period as well as the context of spirit-possession and spirit phenomena more generally. Paul’s judgment finds parallels in the Damascus Document where diverse instructions are given on what to do with those overcome by Belial’s spirits. In each case, removal was meant to be remedial. Yet, Paul’s instructions differ from those of the Damascus Document insofar as reintegration into the covenant community is not something Paul envisions.
Footnotes
1.
2.
For a survey of views see Smith 2008: 3–56; Thiselton 2000: 392–400; 
: 97–98.
3.
Thiselton 1973: 204–28; Rosner 1991:137–45; 1992: 470–73; Campbell 1993: 331–42; South 1992: 38–71; 1993: 539–61; Martin 1995: 169. Compare : 76 n. 62.
5.
Thiselton’s criticism of the alleged parallels is correct in my opinion: ‘None of the Greek “magical” curse formulae cited by Deissmann, Collins, and Conzelmann relate to “handing over to Satan”’ (Thiselton 2000: 398). Deissmann states over a century ago that ‘the full meaning [of 1 Cor. 5.1–5] does not come out until the passage is read in connexion with the ancient custom of execration, i.e. devoting a person to the gods of the lower world.… The only difference between Jewish and pagan execrations probably lay in the fact that Satan took the place of the gods of the lower world’ (: 303–304). This statement, though well intended, preceded major discoveries and publications of the Qumran scrolls, which has likely impacted the avenues scholars have taken to contextualize Paul in 1 Cor. 5.1–5.
6.
The exception to this is Delcor 1968: 69–84. Yet, because this was written in 1968, long before the publication of all the Qumran Scrolls, his interests were in drawing connections between the known sectarian texts that speak of a court system rather than any apotropaic themes. 1 Cor. 5.1–5 gets a fleeting mention in Frey 2014: 246–47. The most sustained study is : 99–103.
7.
On the topic of Jewish apotropaic objects, see Krause 2020: 117–35 and : 39–61.
8.
The exact relationship between the ideas present at Qumran and in Paul’s writings is complex and a direct line of influence is not likely. Instead, as Rey (2014: xi) states: ‘Studying the relations between Judaism and Christianity or defining genetic relations between diverse corpora no longer suffice; one must take into consideration the circulation of ideas, concepts, expressions, modes of representation and processes of interpretation in the different texts’. Articles on parallels between Qumran and Paul are scattered, but for representative samples, one should consult Murphy-O’Connor (1968), Murphy-O’Connor and Charlesworth (1990), Davila (2003), Rey (2014), and : 178–206).
9.
: 135): ‘While the association of the Maskil with the spiritual and liturgical sphere is widely recognised, this figure also occurs in a number of contexts that emphasize obedience to the law in an environment influenced by malevolent forces. Thus, the Teaching on the Two Spirits is associated with the Maskil in the heading. It is illuminating to note the extent to which halakhic rectitude is ascribed to the influence of the Spirit of Truth in 1QS 4:2–316 by filling the heart of its followers with “respect for the commandments of God”. Moreover, the same spirit “engenders enthusiasm for righteous ordinances” according to 1QS 4:4; 4QSc 5 1.… In addition, we find references to the significance of God’s commandments in 1QS 9:15; 4QSe 3 11 and 1QS 9:24. Finally, a number of references to statutes and commandments also occur in the Final Hymn which is associated with the Maskil. The latter is to be identified with the first-person speaker of the Hymn and is introduced at 1QS 9:26; with the instruction to “bless his maker”. We take 1QS 9:26 as the transition between the Statutes for the Maskil and the Final Hymn’.
10.
On the topic of the Spirit being a principle of obedience, see Smith 2006: 75–100. On the idea of Spirit more generally at Qumran, see ; Cf. Jub. 1.19–25.
12.
According to 1QS IV, 18–22, God’s eschatological visitation purifies sectarians so that the possibility of disobedience is eradicated (cf.1QSb II, 24). This new spiritual disposition is necessary because covenantal people maintain their human frailty and can still be influenced by evil spirits. This seeming contradiction is understood to be due to the ‘mysteries of God’ (1QS IV, 18). Yet, 1QS II, 19–III, 12 states that God’s principle of obedience is presently at work within the community enacting repentance and atonement. Entrance into the community is the only means by which a person can atone for their sins, since the one who does not enter the community is said to not have the ‘strength to convert his life’ (1QS III, 1). According to 1QS III, 3–8, alternative means of atoning for sin and justification are ineffectual. The reason for this is because it is by the ‘holy spirit of the community,’ that one is ‘cleansed of all his iniquities’ and ‘his sin is atoned’ (III, 7–8). Thus, membership within the community is necessary to act in accordance with God’s moral commands (cf. 1QS IX, 3–4). Cf. 1QHa VIII, 25–30, XV, 9–10, XII, 32–33.
13.
See Hempel 2020a: 3–7, 170, 177, 269–70; : 192.
14.
Similar blessings can be found in the following texts: 4Q213a 1 I, 12–13, 17; 11Q5 XIX, 15; Jub. 12:29; M. 6.13. See also Flusser, 1966: 194–205; Hempel 2020a: 83–84: : 133.
17.
Kister 1997: 167–84; : 187.
18.
Cf. Bar. 4.1–2; 2 Bar. 21.21; 41.3; 42.2–8; 48.20; 85.15. According to Moses’ prayer in Jub. 1, Israel is influenced by the ‘spirit of Beliar’ as is found in the Damascus Document.
19.
Eshel 2003: 70–71; Nitzan 1994: 145–71, 357–58; : 73–74 n. 80. Compare also the use of שמר in Pss. 91.11 and 121.7.
20.
That the ‘unclean spirits’ should be understood as external evil spirits seems clear due to the mention of warding off ‘wild animals’ in the same line, suggesting physical danger is in mind, not just ethical conduct. Lange 2003: 262–63; : 138.
21.
Obedience is also insinuated in an apotropaic section of the Plea for Deliverance (11Q5 XIX, 1–18). Part of the prayer asks God to ‘Let not Satan rule over me, nor an evil spirit; let neither pain nor evil purpose (רע) take possession (ירשו) of my bones’ (11Q5 XIX, 15–16). However, elsewhere in the Plea this request is pre-empted by identifying the petitioner as one of those ‘loving his name’ (11Q5 XIX, 6) and as one of the ‘devout ones’ (חסידיו; 11Q5 XIX, 7), which appears to mean that the speaker obeys God. Due to this obedience, the speaker says he has ‘found refuge’ in God’s shelter (11Q5 XIX, 12).
22.
25.
Hempel 2000: 21; Baumgarten et al. 1996: 26; Brooke 1991: 215–30. The Damascus Document probably reflects the history of, and a series of rules for, a group of sectarians who did not live isolated from society like those at Qumran (Collins, 2009: 351–69; Holtz 2009: 22–54; Hempel 2010: 193–208; Kapfer 2007: 152–77; : 61–76).
26.
This phrase seems best interpreted as a form of spirit-possession. Vermes 2012: 38; : 198.
27.
: 227) has suggested that by ‘preaching apostasy’, it is probably meant that the individual is speaking out against the leaders of the sect. According to 4QDe, regulations are set up against anyone who ‘divulges secrets’ to pagans or ‘curses’ or ‘[preaches] rebellion’ against ‘those anointed with the spirit of holiness’ (4Q270 2 II, 13–14). It is unclear whether ‘those anointed with the spirit of holiness’ are specific leaders within the sect, or general members.
28.
It is possible that this is a case of the individual proposing a different calendrical calculation than that of the community. See Brand 2013: 228; Baumgarten et al. 1996: 51 n. 182; : 395–96.
29.
30.
Maier 1996: 2:56 n. 314; Schiffman 1975: 78; Gaster 1957: 88; : 56–57.
32.
Strugnell 1995: 298–315; 1990: 221–56; Brin 1992: 27–38; : 265–66.
33.
Cf. 1QS VI, 24–25.
34.
Cf. Num. 5.6; Deut. 8.11–14; 1 Kgs. 9.6–8; 2 Chron. 7.19–22; Isa. 1.4–5; Job 24.13; Isa. 59.12–13; Dan. 9.5, 9–10). Related words such as סוּג and מָרָה also suggest disobedience as a form of apostasy (Neh. 9.26; Ps. 78.57; Zeph. 1.6).
38.
Cf. Exod. Rab. 21 (84A); Sir. 16.8–9; 1 Enoch 1.1.
39.
Lev. 20.6 prohibits Israelites from ‘prostituting’ (לִזְנוֹת) themselves after necromancers, which suggests a form of apostasy that the author of the Damascus Document is privy to.
40.
In 1 Timothy, remediation comes from learning not to blaspheme, not explicitly the destruction of their flesh. One could possibly read this in such a way so that a person who learns not to blaspheme can be reintegrated into the community. Such an interpretation could be implied by the following instructions in 1 Tim. 2.1–6 where the Ephesian ekklēsia is expected to pray and intercede for ‘everyone’ (πάντων ἀνθρώπων) on the basis that God ‘desires everyone (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’. Indeed, even Paul himself says he was ‘formerly (πρότερον) a blasphemer’ (1 Tim. 1.13). Cf. Lev. 24.10–23 where it explicitly calls for the death penalty for blasphemy.
41.
: 31, 33, using ethnographic data collected from Papua New Guinea, suggests that Paul ‘misconstrued’ what the Corinthians believed about spirits and the ‘ancestral dead’ so that ‘[s]ome Corinthians may have understood Paul as providing them, in the figure of Christ, with a more proximate and mobile ancestor for their new, non-ethnic “Christian” ethnos’. He therefore concludes that ‘a Christ myth, as represented by Paul … would have been uninteresting to some Corinthians’ while a ‘spirit myth’ would have been more compelling to others (Smith 2011: 34). On the relationship between Corinth, the dead, and funerary rites, see DeMaris 1995; 2008.
42.
John, for example, is said four times to be ἐν πνεύματι (Rev. 1.10; 4.2; 17.3; 21.10) on the Isle of Patmos and Paul uses this phraseology throughout 1 Cor. 12–14 in describing various spirit phenomena. Kremer 1990: 3:119 puts it succinctly that ‘ἐν πνεύματι came to be a t.t. [technical term] for prophetic ecstasy’. : 65–66: ‘Christ-believers are “in the Spirit” because the Spirit is “in them”: “you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit [ἐν πνεύματι] since the spirit of God dwells in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (Rom 8:9a). To be “in the Spirit” means to be permanently possessed by the divine spirit: “since we live in the Spirit [ζῶμεν πνεύματι], let us also walk in the Spirit” (Gal 5:25). By analogy, then, to be “in Christ” would mean to be permanently possessed by Christ. This conclusion is supported by the fact (1) that for Paul Christ was himself now a “spirit” (1 Cor 15:45; cf. 2 Cor 3:17) and (2) that Paul often used “the spirit of God” and “the spirit of Christ” interchangeably’.
43.
‘Not everyone who speaks ἐν πνεύματι is a prophet but only the one whose behavior is the Lord’s. So the false prophet and the prophet will be recognized by their behavior. No prophet who orders a meal ἐν πνεύματι eats of it himself; if he does, he is a false prophet… You shall not listen to anyone who says ἐν πνεύματι, “Give me money, or something,” but if he is asking that something be given for others who are in need, let no one judge him’ (Did. 11.8–9, 12).
44.
45.
: 146–89 argues that Paul can be situated within the larger phenomena of ‘freelance experts’, from the ancient world so that his audiences may have interpreted him variously as ‘Judean prophet, ethical teacher, philosopher, diviner, mystery initiator, or some combination thereof’ (Wendt 2016: 189). Instead of seeing Paul as strictly ‘within Judaism’, Wendt argues that viewing Paul as a freelance expert ‘with attention to the forms of Judean religion represented therein’ offers a more holistic picture of Paul’s life and ministry (Wendt 2016: 149–50). Such a reading of Paul may help facilitate the connection between Jewish apotropaic beliefs and wider Hellenistic ideas of spirit phenomena that may aid in interpreting 1 Cor. 5.