Commenting on Paul’s use of hyperbole in his epistles and the difficulty in his original listeners in interpreting some of his texts, Carol J. Schlueter, in a book based on her PhD dissertation supervised by E.P. Sanders (a heavy-hitter if there was one in Pauline studies) wrote the following:
Paul’s exaggeration appears to have led to confusion in some of his churches. In 1 Cor. 5.9-13, Paul had written to the Corinthians about not associating with sexually immoral people, but the Corinthians were puzzled as to his exact meaning. Apparently they thought he meant the non-Christian people in Corinth but he really only meant immoral followers of Christ (1 Cor. 5.11). Within 1 Cor 5.9-13 there is a long list of derogatory words that cover every kind of unsavoury person: pornoi (‘sexually immoral persons’), pleonektai (‘coveters’), harpagai (‘swindlers’ or ‘rogues’), loidoroi (‘revilers’), methysoi (‘drunkards’) and eidololatrai (‘idolaters’). Paul advises his convers not to associate with a Christian who is such a person, Once he starts a list of vices, rhetorical momentum takes over, and a form of exaggeration results. The list seems to imply that there may have been members of the Christian community who were guilty of such transgressions. This is doubtful. How many swindlers, revilers and idolaters were actually in the church? These verses are indicative of Paul’s generalizing tendencies which, in this case, misled the Corinthians.
In some cases it can be shown that Paul was immediately conscious of having gone too far, or at least of having appeared to do so. In Romans 6-7 he parallels and so virtually equates the law with sin and the flesh (7.5-6). Subsequently, he asks whether or not he has implied that the law is sin. He denies it (7.7). Mē genoito as the reply to a rhetorical question frequently signals an overstatement, or at least a possible interpretation of his position.
Sometimes, it can be shown, Paul had greatly assisted in the over-interpretation. The vice lists indicate that those who commit various sins and remain in an unrepentant state will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 69-11; Gal. 5.19-21). But when he had to deal with individuals like the man in Corinth who was living with his stepmother, Paul softened his rhetoric. Perhaps the man in Corinth took view that ‘All things are lawful’ (1 Cor. 10.23) to its logical conclusion. Perhaps the man thought that Christians were already living in the eschaton, and as such they were new creations; the old had passed away (2 Cor. 5.17); and all things done unto the Lord were good (1 Cor. 10.23-31). Paul had contributed to the misunderstanding of what was appropriate behaviour.
We also see exaggeration when Paul describes his ethical theory. Those in Christ are a new creation (2 Cor. 5.17; Gal. 6.15). As such, they experience the indwelling Spirit who leads them to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8.1-13; Gal. 5; Phil. 1.11) and to fulfil the law through love for people (Rom. 8.4. But in actual fact his letters are filled with exhortations to live better lives, to be blameless for the day of Christ (Phil. 1.10; 1 Thess. 3.13). Thus, although some of Paul’s rhetoric sounds as if the fruits of the Spirit automatically follow the indwelling of the Spirit, he knew better. (Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 91-92, emphasis added)
Such confusion in certain portions of Paul’s letters can’t help but remind one of the assessment of his epistles in 2 Pet 3:16, " . . . there are some things in them hard to understand . . . " (NRSV) It also blows holes into popular views of the nature of the “perspicuity” of the Bible, an important building block in Sola Scriptura (for more on this doctrine, see Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura). It also highlights the importance of sound exegesis and knowledge of ancient rhetoric and other important tools.