1 Corinthians 5:1

Here the apostle states the case; and,

I. Lets them know what was the common or general report concerning them, that one of their community was guilty of fornication, Co1 5:1. It was told in all places, to their dishonour, and the reproach of Christians. And it was the more reproachful because it could not be denied. Note, The heinous sins of professed Christians are quickly noted and noised abroad. We should walk circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice. This was not a common instance of fornication, but such as was not so much as named among the Gentiles, that a man should have his father's wife - either marry her while his father was alive, or keep her as his concubine, either when he was dead or while he was alive. In either of these cases, his criminal conversation with her might be called fornication; but had his father been dead, and he, after his decease, married to her, it had been incest still, but neither fornication nor adultery in the strictest sense. But to marry her, or keep her as a concubine, while his father was alive, though he had repudiated her, or she had deserted him, whether she were his own mother or not, was incestuous fornication: Scelus incredibile (as Cicero calls it), et prater unum in omni vit inauditum (Orat. pro Cluent.), when a woman had caused her daughter to be put away, and was married to her husband. Incredible wickedness! says the orator; such I never heard of in all my life besides. Not that there were no such instances of incestuous marriages among the heathens; but, whenever they happened, they gave a shock to every man of virtue and probity among them. They could not think of them without horror, nor mention them without dislike and detestation. Yet such a horrible wickedness was committed by one in the church of Corinth, and, as is probable, a leader of one of the factions among them, a principal man. Note, The best churches are, in this state of imperfection, liable to very great corruptions. Is it any wonder when so horrible a practice was tolerated in an apostolical church, a church planted by the great apostle of the Gentiles?

II. He greatly blames them for their own conduct hereupon: They were puffed up (Co1 5:2), they gloried, 1. Perhaps on account of this very scandalous person. He might be a man of great eloquence, of deep science, and for this reason very greatly esteemed, and followed, and cried up, by many among them. They were proud that they had such a leader. Instead of mourning for his fall, and their own reproach upon his account, and renouncing him and removing him from the society, they continued to applaud him and pride themselves in him. Note, Pride or self-esteem often lies at the bottom of our immoderate esteem of others, and this makes us as blind to their faults as to our own. It is true humility that will bring a man to a sight and acknowledgement of his errors. The proud man either wholly overlooks or artfully disguises his faults, or endeavours to transform his blemishes into beauties. Those of the Corinthians that were admirers of the incestuous person's gifts could overlook or extenuate his horrid practices. Or else, 2. It may intimate to us that some of the opposite party were puffed up. They were proud of their own standing, and trampled upon him that fell. Note, It is a very wicked thing to glory over the miscarriages and sins of others. We should lay them to heart, and mourn for them, not be puffed up with them. Probably this was one effect of the divisions among them. The opposite party made their advantage of this scandalous lapse, and were glad of the opportunity. Note, It is a sad consequence of divisions among Christians that it makes them apt to rejoice in iniquity. The sins of others should be our sorrow. Nay, churches should mourn for the scandalous behaviour of particular members, and, if they be incorrigible, should remove them. He that had done this wicked deed should have been taken away from among them.

III. We have the apostle's direction to them how they should now proceed with this scandalous sinner. He would have him excommunicated and delivered to Satan (Co1 5:3-5); as absent in body, yet present in spirit, he had judged already as if he had been present; that is, he had, by revelation and the miraculous gift of discerning vouchsafed him by the Spirit, as perfect a knowledge of the case, and had hereupon come to the following determination, not without special authority from the Holy Spirit. He says this to let them know that, though he was at a distance, he did not pass an unrighteous sentence, nor judge without having as full cognizance of the case as if he had been on the spot. Note, Those who would appear righteous judges to the world will take care to inform them that they do not pass sentence without full proof and evidence. The apostle adds, him who hath so done this deed. The fact was not only heinously evil in itself, and horrible to the heathens, but there were some particular circumstances that greatly aggravated the offence. He had so committed the evil as to heighten the guilt by the manner of doing it. Perhaps he was a minister, a teacher, or a principal man among them. By this means the church and their profession were more reproached. Note, In dealing with scandalous sinners, not only are they to be charged with the fact, but the aggravating circumstances of it. Paul had judged that he should be delivered to Satan (Co1 5:5), and this was to be done in the name of Christ, with the power of Christ, and in a full assembly, where the apostle would be also present in spirit, or by his spiritual gift of discerning at a distance. Some think that this is to be understood of a mere ordinary excommunication, and that delivering him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh is only meant of disowning him, and casting him out of the church, that by this means he might be brought to repentance, and his flesh might be mortified. Christ and Satan divide the world: and those that live in sin, when they profess relation to Christ, belong to another master, and by excommunication should be delivered up to him; and this in the name of Christ. Note, Church-censures are Christ's ordinances, and should be dispensed in his name. It was to be done also when they were gathered together, in full assembly. The more public the more solemn, and the more solemn the more likely to have a good effect on the offender. Note, Church-censures on notorious and incorrigible sinners should be passed with great solemnity. Those who sin in this manner are to be rebuked before all, that all may fear, Ti1 5:20. Others think the apostle is not to be understood of mere excommunication, but of a miraculous power or authority they had of delivering a scandalous sinner into the power of Satan, to have bodily diseases inflicted, and to be tormented by him with bodily pains, which is the meaning of the destruction of the flesh. In this sense the destruction of the flesh has been a happy occasion of the salvation of the spirit. It is probable that this was a mixed case. It was an extraordinary instance: and the church was to proceed against him by just censure; the apostle, when they did so, put forth an act of extraordinary power, and gave him up to Satan, nor for his destruction, but for his deliverance, at least for the destruction of the flesh, that the soul might be saved. Note, The great end of church-censures is the good of those who fall under them, their spiritual and eternal good. It is that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, Co1 5:5. Yet it is not merely a regard to their benefit that is to be had in proceeding against them. For,

IV. He hints the danger of contagion from this example: Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The bad example of a man in rank and reputation is very mischievous, spreads the contagion far and wide. It did so, probably, in this very church and case: see Co2 12:21. They could not be ignorant of this. The experience of the whole world was for it; one scabbed sheep infects a whole flock. A little heaven will quickly spread the ferment through a great lump. Note, Concern for their purity and preservation should engage Christian churches to remove gross and scandalous sinners.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ch. 1Co_5:1-8. The case of the incestuous person

1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you] This explains the mention of the ‘rod’ in the last verse.

and such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles] Two considerations of some importance, bearing on Church history, are suggested by this passage. The first is, that we must dismiss the idea, that the Christian Church at the beginning of its career was a pattern of Christian perfection. The Corinthian community, as described here and in chap. 1Co_11:21, was lamentably ignorant of the first principles of Christian morality and Christian decency, and we see how the Apostles had to begin by laying the very foundations of a system of morals among their depraved heathen converts. It is probable that nowhere, save in the earlier years of the Church at Jerusalem, was there any body of Christians which was not very far from realizing the Christian ideal, and which was not continually in need of the most careful supervision. The second point is that St Paul’s idea of discipline seems to have differed greatly from the principles which were creeping into the Church at the end of the second century. See 1Co_5:5, and compare it with 2Co_2:5-8, which seems plainly to refer to the same person. In spite of the gravity of the crime—it would seem (2Co_7:12) that it was committed while the father was alive—we find here nothing of the long, in some instances life-long, penance which had become the rule of the Church for grave offences before the end of the third century. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remark that by the words ‘father’s wife,’ stepmother is meant. But the language of the Apostle seems to imply that she had been divorced by the father and married to the son, a proceeding which the shameful laxity of Corinthian society rendered possible. See note on ch. 1Co_7:10. Estius, however, thinks that the son was living publicly with his father’s wife, as though she were his own.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_5:1-13

It is reported that there is fornication among you.

Gross scandals

1. May arise within the Church.

2. Occasion grievous reproach.

3. Should be instantly investigated and removed. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The duty of the Church in cases of open immorality

I. To itself.

1. Humiliation.

2. Sorrow.

3. Purgation.

II. To the offender.

1. Separation from the Christian fellowship.

2. Yet in earnest hope of repentance and amendment. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

That wicked person

(text, and 2Co_2:5-11; 2Co_7:8-13):--

I. His sin.

1. He had married his stepmother. Such a marriage, though forbidden by Moses, was, under certain conditions, permitted by the Scribes. Hence it has been thought that this man was a Jew. But from the gravity of Pauls censure it is more probable that he was a Gentile who had availed himself of the easy law of divorce and the licence of Corinthian manners. In itself the sin was not so heinous as many which were committed in that wicked city every day.

2. But there were circumstances which aggravated its guilt.

(1) The father of this young man was alive and keenly resented the wrong (2Co_7:12).

(2) Though Roman law and manners were loose, yet throughout the Empire the act was branded as a public scandal.

(3) This man was a church member and therefore bound to walk by a higher law than that of Rome; and to create such a scandal in such a city might be fatal to the Christian society.

3. Let us, however, do him bare justice, and we shall find him a man like ourselves, open to similar temptations, and falling before them as we fall. From St. Pauls references to him he appears to have been of a sensitive passionate temperament. A few weeks after his expulsion he was in danger of being swallowed up by a swelling and excessive sorrow (2Co_2:7), and the apostle trembled lest he should sink into despair, and vehemently urged his restoration (2Co_2:5-10). Now a man of such temperament might be led almost unwittingly into the gravest sin. His mother is dead and he is deprived of her counsel and sympathy. His father brings home a new wife--a heathen apparently, probably young and fair, given to him by her parents because he is a man of wealth and position. By and by we discover that she is divorced from him and married to his son. Does it require a novelist to suspect that behind these facts lay a romance or a tragedy? The young man may have loved this girl before his father, and while she favoured him her parents may have favoured the elder suitor. Once married, she may have taken out a divorce, as for almost any reason she was able to do, and have given herself to the man she loved. Or, having willingly married the elder man, her heart may have gone over to the younger before she knew she had lost it. Or, more probably still, she may have been one of those fascinating, fatal women with a strange power for taking men captive, and a wicked delight in using it. On any one of these hypotheses the man at once becomes human to us and alive, and while we cannot palliate his sin, it must have had a strong motive, and being a man of like passions with us he does not stand outside the pale of our sympathy.

II. His sentence.

1. He had a terrible awaking from his brief passionate dream. One evening he leaves the fair heathen who has bewitched him and goes down to church. The brethren are at their common evening meal. An unusual animation prevails among them. Titus is there with a letter from Paul, and sits at the board with a clouded, anxious face. The meal over he unrolls the epistle and begins to read. We know how the letter opens. And then, after all this kindly weather, the storm breaks (1Co_4:21). Up to this point all may have listened with tolerable composure. No one had been singled out for blame. But here, surely more than one back must have shivered with prophetic twinge. Probably, however, the young man had no presentiment of what was coming. If so, so much the worse for him; for now the rod falls in earnest. It is impossible to describe the agony of shame with which a sensitive, impulsive man would listen to the sentences which follow.

2. There can be no doubt that St. Paul intended to supply the church with a formula of excommunication, and that they used it. After due consultation, and when the vote of the church had been taken--not an unanimous vote, as it proved (2Co_2:6)--we must suppose that the young man was summoned before the elders of the church, and that they pronounced over him the solemn words, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we deliver thee, So-and-so, to Satan, for the destruction of thy flesh, that thy spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. And we may well believe that the sentence fell on the offender like the doom of death. Not that the apostle meant to shut him out from the common requisites and courtesies of life, or to make him a son of perdition; he meant--

(1) To have this open offender against the law of Christ cast out from the communion of the church, at least for a time, and so brought to a knowledge of his sin and sincere repentance. St. Paul habitually conceived of the heathen world as the domain of Satan, the prince of this world, and therefore to cut a man off from the church and cast him back on the world was to deliver such an one to the power of Satan.

(2) He habitually conceived of pain, disease, loss, obstruction, &c., as the work of the evil spirit, as indeed does all Scripture. Is any good purpose crossed? Satan hindered (1Th_2:18). Is he tormented with a disabling malady? An angel of Satan buffets him (2Co_12:7). He had the highest authority for his conclusion (Luk_13:16). Probably, therefore, just as Job was given over into the hand of Satan for a time to be tried, or just as a darkness fell upon Elymas, so also when the Corinthian was excommunicated there came on him a succession of cruel losses. Perhaps even the loss of the fair heathen woman, or some disease which purged out the fever from his blood and brought him to himself. How all this differs from the ban to which the Church has again and again exposed the heretic, and from the mystic spiritual doom which some have discovered in this formula! For--

(3) The apostle expressly says that the destruction was intended not for damnation, but for salvation (see also 1Co_11:32; 1Ti_1:20).

III. His absolution. If the end crowns the work, who that has seen the end of the Lord with this young man can deny that even his excommunication was a work of mercy? His conscience was roused. He confessed and renounced his sin; his sorrow for it swelled till it threatened to prove fatal. And when Titus brings Paul the tidings, the heart of the apostle is profoundly moved (2Co_2:5-7). And in this passion of forgiving love to the penitent, Paul was a faithful expounder of the very spirit of the gospel. If there was mercy even for the wicked person no man need despair. (S. Cox, D. D.)

The socially immoral in churches

Note--

I. That the socially immoral sometimes find their way into christian Churches. A case of fornication had been reported to Paul. One of the members had actually married his stepmother. Such a piece of immorality would be regarded with the utmost abhorrence, even in heathendom. How such a character became a church member must have been through imposition on the one hand, and the lack of scrutiny on the other. It is to be feared that the admission of the socially immoral into churches has in every age been too common. How many churches are there in England entirely free from those who every day outrage the golden rule? There are merchants that cheat their customers, lawyers their clients, doctors their patients, politicians their constituents; masters and mistresses that oppress their servants, and servants unfaithful to their employers. The Church is a field in which grows the tare as well as the wheat, a net in which there is the unclean as well as the clean.

II. That Churches in their internal religious disputations are in danger of overlooking these (verse 21). Probably there were those who were proud of this man: perhaps he was eloquent, rich, or influential. We have known joint-stock swindlers who have been made chairmen of religious meetings, and who have been cheered to the echo. Party feeling was so strong, and religious disputation so rife, that such immoralities escaped notice. Creeds are more thought of than character, heretics dreaded more than rogues. Hence the saying, sooner trust a man of the world than a professor of religion.

III. That the exclusion by the churches of such is an urgent duty. A true church is a community of Christly men, and the presence of such in it is an outrage.

1. Their expulsion should be practised with the utmost zeal. It would seem that no sooner did Paul hear of this abomination than he determined to put an end to it (verse 3).

2. The expulsion should be practised not to destroy, but to save the offender (verse 5). All punishment should be reformative (Gal_6:1). (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Ecclesiastical excommunication

Note the several grounds on which it is based.

I. Representation (verse 4). There is but One whose condemnation is commensurate with Gods. Nevertheless, as the representative of that ideal man which Christ realised, the Church condemns. As representative, human punishment is expressive of Divine indignation. To deliver unto Satan. I cannot explain such words away. I cannot say the wrath of God and the vengeance of the law are figurative, for it is a mistake to suppose that punishment is only to reform and warn. In our own day we are accustomed to use weak words concerning sin. The Corinthians looked on at this deed of iniquity, and felt no indignation. They called it perhaps mental disease, error, mistake of judgment, irresistible passion. St. Paul did feel indignation; and if St. Paul had not been indignant could he have been the man he was? And this, if we would feel it, would correct our lax ways of viewing sin. Observe, the indignation of society is properly representative of the indignation of God. So long as the Corinthians petted this sinner, conscience slumbered; but when the voice of men was raised in condemnation conscience began its work, and then their anger became a type of coming doom. But only so far as man is Christlike can he exercise this power in a true and perfect manner. The worlds excommunication is almost always unjust, and that of the nominal Church more or less so.

II. The reformation of the offender (verse 5). Of all the grounds alleged for punishment, that of an example to others is the most unchristian. Here the peculiarly merciful character of Christianity comes forth; the Church was never to give over the hope of recovering the fallen. To shut the door of repentance upon any sin, and thus to produce despair, is altogether alien from Christs Spirit. And so far as society does that now it is not Christianised, for Christianity never sacrifices the individual to the society. Christianity has brought out strongly the worth of the single soul. Yet it would be too much to say that example is never a part of the object of punishment. The severe judgments of society have their use. Individuals are sacrificed, but society is kept comparatively pure, for many are deterred from wrong-doing by fear who would be deterred by no other motive.

III. The contagious character of evil (verse 6). Who does not know how the tone of evil has communicated itself? Worldly, irreverent, licentious minds, leaven society. You cannot be long with persons who by innuendo or lax language show an acquaintance with evil, without feeling in sonic degree assimilated to them, nor can you easily retain enthusiasm for right amongst those who scoff at goodness.

IV. Because to permit gross sin would be to contradict the true idea of the Church. Let us distinguish. The Church invisible is the general assembly and Church of the First-born (Heb_12:23). It is that idea of humanity which exists in the mind of God. But the Church visible is the actual men professing Christ, and exists to represent, and at last to realise, the Church invisible. In the first of these senses the apostle says ye are unleavened; i.e., that is the idea of your existence. In the second sense, he describes them as they are, puffed up, contentious, carnal, walking as men. Now, for want of keeping these two things distinct, two grave errors may be committed.

1. Undue severity in the treatment of the lapsed. Into this the Corinthians fell, and so did the Church in the third century, when Novatian, laying down the axiom that the actual state of the Church ought to correspond with its ideal consistently, demanded the non-restoration of the lapsed. But the attempt to make the Church entirely pure must fail: it is to be left to a higher tribunal. Cf. the parable of the wheat and the tares. Only as a Church visible she must separate from her all such foreign elements as bear unmistakable marks of their alien birth.

2. An over-rigorous puritanism (verses 9, 10). Note the dangerous results of that exclusiveness which affects the society of the religious only.

(1) The habit of judging. For, if we only associate with those whom we think religious, we must decide who are religious, for which judgment we have absolutely no materials.

(2) Consciousness: for we must judge those who are not religious, and then the door is opened for all the slander, &c., which make religious cliques worse than worldly ones.

(3) Spiritual pride; for we must judge ourselves, and so say to others, I am holier than thou. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

Discipline in the Corinthian Church

I. The occasion.

1. Common report not always reliable.

2. In this case was lamentably true.

3. Was aggravated by the conduct of the Church.

II. The judgment was--

1. Easy.

2. Authoritative.

3. Decisive.

III. The excommunication was carried into effect--

1. By the assembled church.

2. In the name and with the power of Christ.

3. By apostolic direction.

4. Included a special penalty.

5. Left hope of recovery. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Church discipline

I. Who should exercise it--the minister in connection with the church.

II. How far it extends--to exclusion from the Christian fellowship with its consequences.

III. What is its object?

1. The purity of the church.

2. The amendment of the individual. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Christians ought to be solicitous about the spiritual condition of others

Tom, youre the sort of Christian I like. The speaker was a young man of no religious profession. His companion was a church member in good and regular standing. Youre the sort of Christian I like. You never seem to bother yourself about a fellows soul. The words were lightly spoken, but they pierced like an arrow. One who was passing Toms chamber door that night heard something like this: O God, forgive me that I have seemed indifferent to the welfare of my friends! Help me to trouble myself more and more and more about them! Make me hungry and thirsty for the salvation of those about me! Give me a passion for souls!

Church not to be judged by her hypocrites

Was there ever a club in all the world without disreputable persons in it? Was there ever any association of men that might not be condemned if the fools rule was followed of condemning the wheat because of the chaff? When with all our might and power we purge ourselves of deceivers as soon as we detect them, what more can we do? If our rule and practice is to separate them wholly as soon as we unmask them, what more can virtue itself desire? I ask any man, however much he may hate Christianity, what more can the Church do than watch her members with all diligence, and excommunicate the wicked when discovered? It is a foul piece of meanness on the part of the world that they should aliege the faults of a few false professors against the whole Church: a piece of meanness of which the world ought to be ashamed. Nevertheless, so it is. Ha! ha! they say. So would we have it! The daughter of Philistia rejoices, and the uncircumcised triumphs when Jesus is betrayed by His friend, and sold by His disciple. O deceitful professor, will not the Lord be avenged upon you for this? Is it nothing to make the enemy blaspheme? Oh, hardened man, tremble, for this shall not go unpunished. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned.--

The deplorable and the commendable in a Church

I. The deplorable. Self-inflation, viz., when the Church prides itself on the gifts, wealth, &c., of its members, and when the members boast of the prestige and power of their Church. This is deplorable--

1. In itself.

(1) It is opposed to common sense. What has a Church which it has not received? The richer its gifts the greater its indebtedness.

(2) it is a flagrant transgression of the law of Christ. He that would be chief among you let him be your servant.

(3) It is opposed to the example of Christ who humbled Himself.

2. In its consequences.

(1) A man who carries his head too high is apt to overlook matters that may bring both his head and himself to the ground. So with an inflated Church. The Corinthians, through obliviousness of the immorality practised by some, it may be, of its gifted members, have been a bye-word for nineteen centuries.

(2) A man inflated by his self-conceit of health, strength, &c., may easily overlook humble facts and conditions which may easily prove fatal to the strongest and healthiest. So a Church conscious of its antiquity and connection may ignore certain little sources of weakness which in their after flow cover it with infamy. A little leaven leavened the whole lump. What is the reputation of the Church of Corinth to-day?

II. The commendable is set before us rather by implication.

1. Humility. He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. The Church must stoop to conquer. Absolute subordination to and reliance on its Divine Head is the secret of its triumph.

2. Repentance for shortcomings. The manifest duty and interest of the Church is to face the facts. A fools paradise is a desirable abode neither for the individual nor the Church. Having faced the unwelcome facts it is the duty and interest of the Church to lament and confess them.

3. Reformation. That he that hath done this deed, &c. Without this repentance and humility will be vain. When abuses exist the Church must not think its duty is done when the members recognise and deplore existing evils. Those evils, whether they consist of customs or persons, must be rigorously expelled. (J. W. Burn.)

Want of discipline in a Church--

I. Is a serious evil.

1. It degrades all.

2. Indicates declension of zeal, watchfulness, love, purity.

II. Is commonly associated with pride.

1. The offender may be respectable; or--

2. The offence ignored.

III. Is a just cause of sorrow.

1. For the dishonour done to Christ.

2. The injury done to souls.

3. The discredit wrought upon Gods cause. (J. Lyth, DD.)

As absent in body, but present in spirit.--

Absent in body, but present in spirit

Much as Paul loved his converts he could not, at this period, think of visiting them. Their conduct so distressed and disappointed him that he felt constrained to be absent from them. But this did net imply any lack of interest in them or their proceedings. On the contrary, there was a sense in which he was really with them.

I. The special instance of this principle furnished here. In what sense could the apostle deem himself present with them in spirit?

1. By his teaching. He had long laboured here, and his teaching laid the foundation on which Apollos and the others had built. This teaching included many precepts and motives to holiness, and had sunk into the hearts of the spiritually susceptible. By it the apostle still summoned them to purity.

2. By his authority. He spoke by the Spirit of the Lord, and what he directed the Corinthians to do would be sanctioned by the Head of the Church. In vindicating the purity of the Christian communion, and in cleansing the stained robe of Christs Bride they were to feel that Paul was with them inspiring and corroborating their action.

II. The general operation in the living church.

1. Christ, its Founder and Saviour, is absent in body, but present in Spirit. He assured His disciples that it was expedient for them that He should go away, &c.

2. The action of the Church when in accordance with Christs instructions must be recognised as prompted by His Spirit and sanctioned by His authority. His presence is promised, and should be realised, to teach, comfort, and authorise the actions of those who do His will. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together … to deliver such an one unto Satan.--

Exclusion from Christian fellowship where duly inflicted

I. Is a terrible penalty. Enforced--

1. By Christ.

2. His ministers.

3. The Church.

II. Entails serious consequences.

1. Loss of privilege.

2. Exposure to evil.

3. In this case possibly bodily affliction.

III. Is merciful in its design.

1. To condemn the sin.

2. To save the sinner. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The power of excommunication must be exercised

I. In the name of Christ. According to His command and direction.

II. By the Church. With its knowledge and consent.

III. In the apostolic spirit. With zeal for Gods honour and love for the offender.

IV. With the power of Christ. With His authority.

V. For the destruction of the flesh. Its sinful tendencies.

VI. That the spirit may be saved. By timely repentance and reformation. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The extreme penalty of the Church--

1. Is reserved for notorious offenders.

2. Implies serious consequences.

3. May be mercifully overruled for good. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 5:1-2. It is, &c. — As if he had said, I have spoken of coming to you with a rod of correction, and it is too probable I maybe laid under a necessity of using it, though it be an unwilling necessity: for it is commonly reported that there is fornication practised among you — The original word, πορνεια, implies criminal conversation of any kind whatever; and is used by the LXX., and by the writers of the New Testament, in the latitude which its correspondent word hath in the Hebrew language, namely, to denote all the different kinds of uncleanness committed, whether between men and women, or between men, or with beasts. Accordingly it is used in the plural number, chap. 1Co 7:2. Here the word signifies incest joined with adultery, the woman’s husband being still living, as appears from 2Co 7:12. In the Old Testament whoredom sometimes signifies idolatry, because the union of the Israelites with God as their king being represented by God himself as a marriage, their giving themselves up to idolatry was considered as adultery. Such fornication as is not named among the Gentiles — Degenerate as they are, and abandoned to very vile practices; but is generally much condemned and detested. Accordingly many quotations brought by Whitby and others on this text, show that incest was held in high abomination among the heathen. And an enormity of this kind, as is well known, is called by Cicero, scelus incredibile et inauditum, an incredible and unheard-of wickedness. That one should have — Should cohabit with, or should marry, his father’s wife — His step-mother, and that during his father’s life. And ye, notwithstanding, are puffed up — Glory in your present condition, (1Co 4:8; 1Co 4:10,) and make an ostentation of your spiritual gifts to the neglect of your duty. And have not rather mourned — Given evident proofs of sorrow, such as one would have supposed a crime like this should have occasioned to the whole society, throwing every member of it into a state of humiliation and self-abasement; that he who hath done this deed might be taken from among you — Might, at that time of solemn mourning, have been expelled from your communion. From the Corinthians tolerating this crime, Macknight infers “that the guilty person was of some note among them; perhaps one of the teachers of the faction, who, being greatly admired for his personal qualifications, had escaped censure by arguing that such marriages were not forbidden by the gospel.” “It is remarkable, that neither here, nor in any of the passages where this affair is spoken of, is the woman mentioned, who was the other party in the crime. Probably she was a heathen, consequently not subject to the discipline of the church.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(b) 5:1-13. The Case of Immorality

The Apostle had written (1Co_4:21) of coming to exercise authority. Here was a case in which it was needed. A man had created a scandal by marrying his stepmother, and the Corinthians had done nothing. They had allowed him to retain his membership in the Church. St. Paul instructs them to excommunicate the offender, and keep the Church pure.

1-8. Paraphrase. 'A rumour has reached me that unchastity exists among you, and that one of your number has taken his stepmother as his wife, an act which the very heathen abhor. (2) How can you maintain your attitude of self-satisfaction in presence of this scandal? Why do you not rather humiliate yourselves and remove the sinner from your fellowship? (3) For I who am at a distance feel the disgrace as though I were among you, and have already decided what must be done, as if I were in your assembly. (4, 5) When you are gathered together, I being present with you in spirit, proceed to pass sentence of excommunication on this man, delivering him solemnly to Satan in the name of Jesus our Lord, that his soul may be saved even if his body perish. (6) How senseless is your self-conceit in presence of this impurity. Do ye not realise that you are all in danger of being degraded by it? (7) Put away this leaven of unholiness, then, and remain free from it. Remember how at the Passover all leaven was put away; and now that our Paschal Lamb Christ Jesus has been sacrificed, and our feast of unleavened bread begun, (8) let us celebrate our Passover by putting away the leaven of vice and sin and using only the unleavened bread of purity and truth.'

1. It is reported commonly] RV 'It is actually reported.' His father's wife] The father may have been dead or separated from his wife: the stepson had then married her. The Corinthian Church was evidently unconscious that there was anything sinful in such a union. Had the man and woman been living in sin without marriage the Church could scarcely have made even a show of defending their conduct. The persons referred to in 2Co_7:12 have no connexion with this incident: see notes there.

2. Puffed up] This is probably to be taken generally as referring to their boastfulness about their spiritual privileges and attainments: cp. 1Co_4:6-12. The Apostle expresses surprise that the scandal among them did not humble their pride.

3. Have judged already] taking their concurrence for granted; or giving them a suggestion trusting that they would follow it at once. He here asserts his authority to guide them in matters of discipline; and it was over this question of authority, and not over that of the offender's conduct, that the dispute between St. Paul and the Church arose.

4. In the name of our Lord Jesus] Placed emphatically at the beginning, to indicate the Church's final authority for taking this step to enforce discipline: cp. Mat_18:18, Mat_18:20. When ye are gathered together, etc.] St. Paul did not take discipline out of the hands of the Church. He stepped in when the Church had failed in duty, pointing out the duty and leaving the Church to perform it.

My spirit] They were to think of him as present in spirit, and to let his influence mould their deliberations.

5. To deliver.. unto Satan] The offender was to be solemnly excommunicated and handed over to Satan, who had power to cause disease, in the belief that sufferings of body would assail him and work repentance and salvation in him, even if they ended in bodily death: cp. Luk_13:16; 2Co_12:7.

6. Your glorying] see on 1Co_5:2. A little leaven] Leaven is here used of corrupting influences as elsewhere in the NT., except in our Lord's parable of the leaven: cp. Mat_16:6, Mat_16:12; Mar_8:15; Luk_12:1; Gal_5:9. A low ideal of conduct even in one case has farreaching effects upon the whole community.

7. The old leaven] Not (or, at any rate, not only) the unchaste sinner, but the spirit in the Church which is indifferent to the sin. Christ our Passover] The mention of leaven, which was associated with the Passover, causes the Apostle to think of that institution; and leads him to speak of Christ in allegorical fashion as the Christian Church's Passover. As Christ has been sacrificed the days of the spiritual feast of unleavened bread have begun; and consequently every vestige of impurity and malice and sin must be rigorously excluded.

9-13. Paraphrase. 'This is just what I wrote to you in my former letter—that you were to have no connexion with men of impure life. (10) I did not mean that you were to have nothing to do with the heathen, who are greedy and covetous and idolaters, in matters of business and such like, for that is impossible. (11) But I meant that if any professing Christian were guilty of such wickedness as impurity or drunkenness or evil speaking or greed, you were to have no fellowship with him. (12, 13) I have nothing to do, so far as judgment is concerned, with the world at large. We have to judge those in the Church; whereas the judgment of the world we leave to God. Therefore, excommunicate that wicked man.'

9. In an epistle] This clearly refers to a previous letter no longer extant and prior to any of our Epistles to the Corinthians. See Intro.

11. But now I have written] RM 'As it is, I wrote.' The meaning is, 'What I wrote was,' etc. The Corinthians probably asked St. Paul in their letter in reply to his first one, what they were to do when they met non-Christians in business and society. Not to eat] They might be compelled to meet with such men and to have some business or social relations with them, but they were not to have any association with them but what was absolutely unavoidable.

12. Them.. that are without] i.e. the heathen generally; all outside the Church.

Do not ye] They exercised discipline in some cases though they had not recognised its necessity in this one.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PART SECOND. ST. PAUL’S TEN APOSTOLIC RESPONSES,

1Co_5:1 to 1Co_16:4.

PAUL’S FIRST RESPONSE:—TO THE RUMOURS TOUCHING THE REPORT OF INCEST, 1Co_5:1-13.

a. Judgment upon the incestuous man, 1Co_5:1-5.

1. Reported—This report, like those touching the Church strifes in the first chapter, must have come from the “household of Chloe,” or from the three special messengers; probably the latter. Commonly—Literal Greek, wholly. This cannot mean, as it is rendered by some, “every-where,” or “generally;” for in Ephesus it could have not been generally spread, and at Corinth Paul could know nothing of the extent of its spread. The Greek word, with a negative in a sentence, would signify “not at all;” as here, with an affirmative, it must signify, reversely, absolutely, or as Alford, actually. The word, then, does not indicate the extent of the report, but aggravates the heinousness of the sin reported.

Fornication—A term here comprehending any sexual criminality, and designating a case of incest.

So much as named—According to the best manuscripts this clause should be omitted.

Have—The word would indicate either by marriage or by concubinage. How dissolute a city Corinth was, how prostitution was even there made a religious rite, and courtezans were regular priestesses to the goddess of lust, we have stated in the introduction to this epistle. The present transgressor was a member of the Church, and so probably was his father, against whom the sin was committed. 2Co_7:12. We may suppose the transgressor to have been a Gentile, who construed the morality of the new religion to be “liberal” on the laws of sex. Paul, therefore, in the next clause admonishes them that such a looseness would place Christianity below the average morals of paganism.

Among… Gentiles—Though from the necessity of the case marriage among near relations at the commencement of the race was tolerated, yet in time it would be disclosed by experience that such “marrying in” would depreciate and destroy the race. Then the powerful intuitions of our nature have placed abhorrence of incest among the fundamentals of moral law.

Instances of incest as narratives of abomination and horror are given in many of the classic authors. Edipus, by sad mistake marrying his own mother, is the subject of one of the most thrilling dramas of Sophocles.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-8. Excommunication of an incestuous offender.

It is reported. The abruptness with which the subject is introduced shows the intensity of St. Paul"s feelings, and his indignation that he should have been left to hear of this crime by common report. The news had come to him "from those of Chloe"s household." But St. Paul was not acting on mere "report." The Greek phrase implies, "It is notorious that there is uncleanness among you." St. Paul must have felt it to be a bad feature in the character of the Corinthian Church that they had not mentioned this gross scandal in their letter. Commonly; rather, actually or absolutely; Elsewhere in the New Testament the worn only occurs in Mat_5:24; 1Co_6:7 1Co_15:29. Tertullian renders it "in totum." St. Paul has no need in this instance to name his informants. Every one knew of this scandal. Fornication; a general word for all kinds of impurity. And. The word involves an indignant climax, "Yes, and uncleanness of such a kind that," etc. Is not so much as named. The true reading is, does not even exist. This form of incest was, indeed, "named" among the Gentries, for it forms the basis of the story of Hippolytus, the scene of which was in the neighbourhood of Corinth; but the feelings even of pagans were so shocked by it that Cicero alludes to such a crime in the words, "Oh, incredible wickedness, and except in this woman"s case unheard of in all experience!" ("Pro Cluent.," 5). At this very epoch Nero deepened the general execration against himself by the generally accepted suspicion that he had been guilty of a yet more flagrant crime. Should have; rather, that a certain person has his father"s wife. Apparently this was some nominal Christian, who was living in open sin with his stepmother, and thereby braving the curse of Lev_18:17; Deu_27:20. We gather from), 2Co_7:12 that the father was living, and had also joined the Christian community. From the complete silence as to the crime of the woman, it must be inferred that she was a heathen. Whether she had been divorced or not does not appear, nor whether the offender was nominally married to her or not. His father"s wife. He might have used the one Greek word for stepmother (mhtruia) but the periphrasis might remind some of the heinousness of the sin, and of Lev_18:8.

Vers. 1-5.

The socially immoral in Churches.

is reported commonly that there is fornication among you," etc. The greater portion of this chapter is taken up with one subject, that is, gross social immorality. The verses before us suggest three general remarks

I THAT THE SOCIALLY IMMORAL SOMETIMES FIND THEIR WAY INTO CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. It had been reported to Paul that there were some members of the Corinthian Church guilty of gross "fornication;" that one of the members had actually married his father"s wife not, however, his own mother, but his stepmother. Such a piece of immorality would be regarded with the utmost abhorrence, even through the whole Roman empire. Paul says that such a case was not "so much as named among the Gentiles." How such a character became a member of the Christian community is not stated. It is reasonable, however, to suppose that it was through imposition on the one hand and the lack of scrutiny on the other. It is to be feared that the admission of the socially immoral into Churches has in every age been too common. How many Churches are there in England entirely free from those who every day outrage the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"? There are merchants that cheat their customers, lawyers that swindle their clients, doctors that take advantage of their patients, statesmen that deceive their constituents and in the name of patriotism promote their own selfish ends, masters and mistresses that oppress their servants, servants unfaithful to their employers. Ay, the Church is a field in which grows the tare as well as the wheat, a net in which there is the "unclean" as well as the "clean.

II THAT CHURCHES IN THEIR INTERNAL RELIGIOUS DISPUTATIONS ARE IN DANGER OF OVERLOOKING THE SOCIALLY IMMORAL AMONG THEM. "And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned." Probably there were those in the Church who were proud of the membership of this incestuous man; perhaps he was an orator, or had a long purse, or was a person of great social influence. We have known joint stock swindlers who have been made chairmen of religious meetings, and who have been cheered to the echo. Party feeling was so strong, and religious disputation so rife amongst them, that such immoralities escaped their notice. Who is the best preacher? what is the sound doctrine? what are the ceremonies to be observed? Such questions as these were all absorbing amongst them. Moral character was a secondary thing, theories and beliefs primary. This has ever been too much the case in Christian Churches. Creeds are more thought of than character, doctrines than doings, heretics dreaded more than rogues. Some of the worst men morally I have ever known have been prominent members of Churches. Hence the saying, "Sooner trust a man of the world than a professor of religion.

III THAT THE EXCLUSION BY THE CHURCHES OF SUCH MEMBERS FROM THEIR MIDST IS AN URGENT DUTY. A true Church is a community of Christly men, and the presence of such characters in it is an outrage. The verses teach:

1. That their expulsion should be practised with the utmost zeal. It would seem that no sooner did Paul hear of this abomination than he determined

2. to put an end to it. "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed." As if he had said, "Though absent from you, as soon as I heard it I determined to get such a vile character expelled forthwith from the community;" and to do it when they were gathered together "in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ," that is, by the authority and power of Christ. Paul seems to burn with zeal in the matter. Zeal is not an uncommon thing in Churches: in some cases and seasons it becomes a glowing passion; but, alas! it is too often concerned more with the tenets of creeds and the interests of sects than with purity of life in its members.

3. That the expulsion should be practised with the utmost zeal, not to destroy, but to save the offender. "Deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Satan was regarded as the origin of all physical evils, and the meaning here may be deliver the immoral person over to the sufferings of excommunication. But what for? Not to destroy him, but "that the spirit may be saved." All punishment should be reformative should be inflicted to correct, not to crush. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one.

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB. Vers. 1-5.

Excision of a flagrant offender from the Church.

No haste was evinced by the apostle to reach a question that gave him much anxiety. Among the striking phenomena incident to mind as connected with body, the rate of movement in ideas is worthy of notice. Certain classes of ideas, such as those associated with instinctive action, are very rapid. And equally noticeable is the fact that thoughts involving the spontaneous intellect are more swift than those belonging to the volitional intellect. And, moreover, the same man thinks with more rapidity in some moods than in others. We all know how the physical heart is accelerated in its beat and how the lungs breathe faster under certain circumstances; and, beyond doubt, there is a correlation in these phenomena between mind and matter. Now, at first sight, this fact may not strike us, but, on a nearer view, we see that intellectual and moral discipline is very intimately bound up therewith. Take the case of St. Paul in the matter under consideration. Here was a scandal in the Corinthian Church, a case of incest, a son taking his father"s wife, publicly known, so shocking as to be under the ban of heathenism. A man such as St. Paul, intense, full of impulse, with a temperament eager to act on the spur of the moment a man whose sensations instantly turned into sensibilities, and whose thoughts naturally tended to immediate words and deeds, this man, in one of his most anxious seasons as an apostle, holds his painful solicitude in check and will not utter his heart till the way has been fully prepared. Rare self control this, and most honourable all the more so, indeed, as he had other grounds for just indignation. But he was writing "for Christ"s sake," and this was enough. He will not hurry to relieve his overfull mind. Other things had to be said first. The glory of his Lord as the Wisdom and Power of God, the Divine idea in the ministry, the broad contrast between preaching the gospel and all utterances merely human, the evil of partisanship, the humiliation and suffering of the apostles, and especially his fatherly care over sons disturbing the peace of the Christian household, all these truths were to be set forth, illustrated, enforced, before he entered on practical questions. Is there not something here worthy of reflection? The world"s practicalness is not very tolerant of general ideas and their elaboration. With it, brain and hand are near neighbours; its thoughts and actions hasten into alliances. If a proper degree of precaution be used, this is unquestionably a wise general rule. There is indeed

A tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

but the same representative thinker of humanity warns us that when we "mean to build," we should "survey

The plot of the situation, and the model; Consent upon a sure foundation.

Promptness is not always the synonym of prudence, and where one Hamlet wastes excessive sensibility on mere ideas and their images, so that "enterprises lose the name of action," scores of men wreck themselves in an opposite direction. Between these extremes, St. Paul was happily poised. He had mastered principles, he understood details by virtue of these principles, and he was an exception even among great leaders, because he saw very deeply into the springs of action. So that when he came to deal with the case of the notorious offender among the Corinthians, a broad space had been cleared for himself. The ideal of the Church, of the ministry, of Christianity itself, had been resplendently displayed. Thought had been elevated, feeling quickened, selfishness put to shame, and a state of mind created in himself, and we may hope in his brethren, favourable to fortunate issues. How much these Corinthians needed just such instruction, and, more particularly, what obligations were laid upon them by Christianity to be humble, we see plainly enough in this chapter. "Instead of expelling the offender with mourning and shame, you oh, strange mystery of the invariable connection between sensuality and pride have been inflated with sophistical excuses about the matter" (Dr. Farrar). And yet, all the while, though this wickedness is an outrage on common decency, and in shameless contempt of public opinion, at which even paganism would blush, St. Paul approaches the subject from the standpoint of Christianity. He never takes a lower way when the higher is possible. For with him it is a cardinal principle that the higher includes the lower; this is his method of thought; and agreeably thereunto he is the profoundest of intellectual philosophers, even in his exposure of the meagreness and vanity of the world"s reasonings. So that we see in this instance that he felt himself set for the defence of true reason, no less than of genuine religion, working down to the instinct of the reason as he worked down to the depths of consciousness in all else. The reality of the position, the solemnity of the transaction, the whole body of circumstances, rise with instant vividness before the eye of the mind, never so much an eye as when outer vision is suspended. Away in Ephesus, the apostle had brooded over this severe trial so taxative to skill and patience, since the roots of the horrible evil were as a cancer spreading its poisonous fibres through the body. Night and day it clung to him, and, wherever he went, some new rumour of the disgrace awaited his heart. Ionia was as Achaia. So long had he dwelt upon it, so many prayers had gone up to God for enlightenment and guidance, so agonizing had been the wrestlings of his spirit, that he was as if on the spot. "Absent in body," says he, "but present in spirit," and I have "judged already, as though I were present" with you in the body. And thus ideally in their midst, the whole procedure not only before the Church, but the Church participating in the judicial act, he himself a witness and an actor, and Christ Jesus with them in the power of the Spirit, this shocking offender must be delivered to Satan. Not only had the Church been dishonoured by the guilty man, but they themselves had shared the sin and the reproach by neglecting to exercise that discipline which was one form, and a very important form, of the kingdom that was "not in word, but in power. Deliverance to Satan means excommunication from Christian fellowship. How much more is implied it is difficult to determine. Taking the passage in its immediate bearings and in connection with the general tenor of the Scriptures, it would seem to indicate that the culprit was surrendered to the power of Satan, by whose influence he had already been corrupted; his own will consenting to the depravation. This act of the Church gave him over to the malignant agency of Satan, and in so doing fulfilled a Divine judgment. Yet it contemplated besides a merciful discipline. The punishment was punishment since it was "for the destruction of the flesh," and coincidently a disciplinary process that "the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Mercy and truth meet together here, and righteousness and peace kiss each other. The door of repentance is not closed; still less is the possibility of reconciliation forestalled. Christ demonstrates himself in and through the Church, his representative, as Christ the Judge. But it is Christ, Head of the Church, not Christ, the Judge of the nations, on the throne of the last day. Suffering in the body was ordained for the well being of the spirit. Natural laws, if violated, revenge themselves on the violator. Apparently, however, much more is meant in this instance. The culprit had gone beyond natural law. A member of the Church, and nominally retaining his place among those "called to be saints," he had sacrificed, in a most ruthless manner, those spiritual relations which are to the immortal man more sacred and enduring than any and all other ties. If his vice, reeking and dripping with the foulest slime of earth, had invaded the spiritual realm of Christ"s kingdom, the act of excommunication cannot pause at simple excision. Nay; of that other world, whose mysteries envelop us a world of spirit and spirits within the world of the senses the offender and the Church and St. Paul were inhabitants, and, hour by hour, the realities of life were most real in this occult domain. There the great secrets lie, the secret sources of motive and purpose, of strength and weakness, and of life and death. There we get our tragedies, so that Shakespeare found it impossible to write "Macbeth" without "supernatural solicitings," and even the Platonic Brutus must face the vengeance of the other world in the tent near Sardis. And there this judgment allies itself with Satanic agency in subordination to Christ"s authority. And there, finally, over all, is infinite tenderness; and, though ruin might be wrought on the outward man, seeing that his sin was specially heinous and involved in a signal way the most terrible retributions of an outraged body, yet it remained possible that his spirit might be "saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Vers. 1, 2.

Impurity in the Church.

There could scarcely be stronger internal evidence of the genuineness of this Epistle than is supplied by this very painful chapter. Real circumstances alone could account for the devotion of a considerable portion of this document to such a theme as is here treated. The solicitude and indignation of the apostle are highly characteristic; whilst the insight afforded into the moral state of the Corinthian congregation is obviously one which only unmistakable facts can justify and explain. Moral lessons of high value may be deduced from the apostle"s treatment of a distressing subject.

I WE OBSERVE THE DEBASED MORAL SENTIMENTS AND PRACTICES WITH WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO CONTEND. We need not go to the moralists, the satirists, the poets of classical literature, in order to form a judgment as to the corruptions which prevailed among the nations previously to the promulgation of Christianity. The New Testament, especially St. Paul"s writings, are a sufficient witness. We have the opportunity of learning, through our travellers and missionaries, how largely the state of the heathen world at the present time corresponds with that of pre-Christian paganism.

1. The passage before us furnishes an example of fornication, which was scarcely thought to be a vice, and indeed was a religious observance among the voluptuous society of Corinth.

2. But the case was one of aggravated adultery and incest, which the moralists of antiquity admitted to be crimes, but which it surprises us to find, even in an individual case, in one of the early Christian communities. Such, however, was the moral condition for which our Divine religion brought a remedy.

II WE REMARK THE LAXITY ON THE PART OF A CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY WHICH COULD TOLERATE SUCH OFFENCES AGAINST MORALITY.

1. The Church at Corinth allowed the offender to remain unreproved in their midst, as though nothing had happened which called for especial notice and vigorous and immediate action.

2. They did not even mourn, did not distress themselves, did not make the event an occasion of humiliation and mourning; which showed a sad insensibility to the evil.

3. So far from this, at the very time when their fellowship was so disgraced, they were "puffed up," boasting themselves of their spiritual gifts and intellectual distinction!

III WE GRATEFULLY NOTE THE PROTEST OF THE INSPIRED APOSTLE AGAINST THE CONDUCT BOTH OF THE OFFENDER AND OF THOSE WHO TOLERATED HIM. It may occur to some readers of the Epistle to ask Is not the very fact that such sin existed and was suffered in the bosom of a Christian society a proof that Christianity had little real, moral, beneficent power in the world? Wherein was this Church at Corinth better than any heathen society? Could a worse state of things exist without than that which admittedly existed within? The answer to this objection is obvious and sufficient, and is very instructive to us.

1. The conduct of the offender was in direct violation of the laws upon which the society to which he nominally belonged was built. Purity was, as much as justice or benevolence, a fundamental law of the Christian kingdom.

2. This conduct was also in flagrant contrast and antagonism to the spirit and life of the Divine Founder of that religion which was professedly received by these Corinthian Christians. Jesus was the model of purity of heart, and his life and character were sinless, holy, blameless.

3. The inaction and tolerance which were blamable in the congregation were inconsistent with their well known duty. The Christian Church is not a club, whose members are at liberty to receive and reject whomsoever they choose. It is a society of which Christ is the Head and Lord, and is bound to receive those who possess his Spirit, and to reject those who openly and unmistakably grieve and outrage that Spirit. The members of the Church were termed "the holy," or "saints;" and although all were and still are in character far short of the designation they bear, there can be no question as to the inconsistency of a life of incest with a Christian profession.

4. The case called for the stern interference of the apostle, as an authority over the Churches His language was intended to quicken the conscience, to enlighten the judgment, to call forth the action, of those who were very negligent and culpable. It Was a new thing in heathendom that such a stand should be made as that which was on this occasion made by the apostle of the Gentiles.

5. Further, the action of the Church, when Brought to a proper state of mind, was such as to show that one great end of the existence of Christian societies was the promotion of moral pretty. The excision of the members was necessary to the preservation of the health of the body.

6. The ultimate repentance and restoration of the offender is a proof to us that the Christian Church was designed to promote, not only the purity of the pure, but the recovery of the lapsed. In this the Church showed herself to be penetrated with the compassionate Spirit of her Divine Master and Head. T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL Vers. 1-7.

Church discipline.

I FLAGRANT SIN IS NOT TO BE TOLERATED IN THE CHURCH. Though the precepts of Christianity are most pure, professors are sometimes impure. The Corinthian Church furnished a deplorable example. The sin of one of its members was a sin which was "not even among the Gentiles." Occasionally occurring among them, but exceptional even in such debased communities; held in general reprobation, not countenanced by their laws. Into the purest society a great impurity may creep. But in the Church of Christ no such iniquity must be winked at. To permit its continuance would be:

1. To imperil the spiritual life of the whole community. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" Sin has great spreading power; it is marvellously aggressive.

2. To bring contempt upon the Church. The Church has often to endure contempt, but she should never deserve it.

3. To annihilate the Church"s influence for good. How can she fight against evils without, if she tolerates them within.

4. To grieve the Head of the Church. What an anomaly for the Church to foster or be indifferent to the sins which pierced her Lord!

5. To invite the judgment of God. For transgression the ancient Church was cast away, and shall the Church of the new dispensation escape if she gives herself to folly and sin?

II TO BE DEALT WITH:

1. By the Church.

2. The flagrant offender to be excluded. For slight offences warning may suffice, but serious lapses call for serious remedies. Sufficient recognition of the sin (as in excommunication) may be well, not only for the Church, but for the transgressor. If the Church think lightly of his misdemeanour, he will probably think lightly of it also. Inferentially we gather that the social position, wealth, influence, of the offender do not come into the account. The law of the Church is the same for rich and poor, high and low.

3. With hope of the offender"s reclamation. In the case at Corinth the guilty one is, in Paul"s language, to be delivered "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." The meaning probably is that Satan shall have power to deal with him somewhat as he did with Job (Job_2:4-7) and with Paul himself; (2Co_7:7) that the sin shall be followed by suffering; the evil doer, outside the Church, being placed in the hands of Satan, "the god of this world," not absolutely, but largely, so far as bodily affliction is concerned. Satan is represented in Scripture as causing bodily pain. (see Luk_13:16) This deliverance to Satan was a power delegated to the Corinthian Church by Paul, who, as an inspired apostle, possessed it. The object of the deliverance to Satan was that "the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The means, "the destruction of the flesh," not the destruction of the body, which is to have a place in the resurrection, but by affliction of the body the destruction of that "flesh," that carnality, that corrupt nature, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is charitable to hope that affliction may fall, even heavily, upon flagrant transgressors in the Church. This may lead them to repentance and to a holier life. Exclusion from Church fellowship is to have this object in view. The severance is with a view to reunion, either below or above. We give up fellowship, but not hope. Our expectation and prayer should be that those excluded may be found in a saved condition in the day of the Lord Jesus. We should not exclude out of vindictiveness, nor with spirit of final judgment, nor in despair of God"s grace. Note: It is a very solemn thing to be excluded from the visible Church of Christ. This places us visibly in the kingdom of Satan, and we know not how much more fully under Satanic influence. The Church is a shelter and refuge appointed by God; we should be careful how we forfeit our place in it. But, however sad our severance from the Christian Church may be, the real sadness is in the sin which causes that severance.

III CHURCH DISCIPLINE A CAUSE OF CHURCH SORROW.

1. Incompatible with boast fulness. A cause of humiliation. Whilst we are vainly glorying, the devil is doing his work diligently, and the result will presently appear. Those who are "puffed up" are preparing for a great abasement. Corinthian joy is the herald of sorrow:

2. Grief for the excluded one. Once a brother a brother greatly beloved, perhaps and now?

3. Grief tending to self examination on the part of those still in fellowship.

(1) Possibly the lapsed one was not cared for as he should have been.

(2) The evil was not checked, perhaps, when it was in the bud. There may have been opportunities to save from actual ann open transgression.

(3) The evil, perhaps, was rather fostered; indirectly, at all events, by too light an estimate of its heinousness. This may have been so at Corinth; in a city so notoriously corrupt some believers may have entertained lax views of profligacy. If we have in any way helped a brother to fall, how keen should be our regret!

(4) The offender may have been led away by the careless living of some in the Church. Or

(5) may have been influenced by the general tone of the Church. At Corinth, no doubt, the many divisions and the much glorying in men bred an unhealthy Church atmosphere. H.

HOMILIES BY H. BREMNER Vers. 1-6.

Church discipline.

From the subject of the party divisions at Corinth, the apostle passes on to consider other evils which had come to his knowledge. The first is a case of incest, in which a member of the Church had married, or was cohabiting with, his stepmother; and this incestuous person was permitted to remain in the Christian community. Such a case gives us a glimpse into the sad condition of Corinthian society. This heterogeneous population was exposed to three influences that were decidedly adverse to a high morality: extensive commerce, involving contact with the vices of foreigners and developing luxurious living; the Isthmian games celebrated in the neighbourhood; and the worship of Venus. The Church that was drawn from such a community could not escape the infection of its low moral tone. Many weeds were already in the soil into which the good seed was cast. We can thus understand how in such a society so gross a case as this might arise.

I SPIRITUAL PRIDE AND GROSS SIN ARE OFTEN FOUND TOGETHER. The Corinthians were puffed up because of their fancied attainments, (1Co_4:8) whilst this awful wickedness was tolerated among them. Spiritual pride is a distemper sure to beget other grosser evils, whether in individuals or Churches. It dims the spiritual eye and blunts the moral sense, and thereby leads to a fall. Perfectionism content to dwell with incest!

II THE EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE.

1. Its warrant. Every society has the right to reject members whose character is inconsistent with its constitution and ends. This is true of the state, as of private associations; and the same right is not to be denied to the Church. As a healthy body throws off disease which finds a lodgment in an unhealthy one, so a healthy Church will not tolerate in its bosom open transgressors. The true ideal of the Church is not collective, but selective not embracing all men as such, but only those who have been called outfrom the world (ejkklhsia). The dividing line is not absolute there will always be tares among the wheat; but some line there must be. And this inherent right is confirmed by Divine injunction. (Mat_18:17)

1. Its form. In this case the Church is to assemble, Paul himself being present in spirit, and in the Name of the Lord Jesus "to deliver such a one unto Satan". (comp 1Ti_1:20) This probably points to something more than simple excommunication, perhaps to bodily suffering or death, which the apostles in certain instances had the power of inflicting (Ananias and Sapphira, Act_5:1-11; Elymas. (Act_13:11) Apart from the specialties of this case, it is plain that disciplinary dealing with scandalous members is to take the form of exclusion from the fellowship of the Christian society; and this is to be the solemn act of the Church, either collectively or by duly appointed representatives. Such a judicial sentence, pronounced in virtue of the power conferred by the Lord Jesus, should carry with it great weight; and that it may have its due effect on the mind of the offender, let there be joined with it brotherly dealing and prayer.

2. Its ends.

(1) As regards the individual, the censures of the Church have in view his true well being. The deliverance to Satan has for its object the destruction of the flesh and the ultimate saving of the spirit. How it brings this about may be learnt from the case of Peter ("Satan asked to have you,"; Luk_22:31) from Paul"s thorn in the flesh ("a messenger of Satan,"; 2Co_12:7) and especially from the experience of Job. (Job_1:12) The sifting of the adversary drives away the chaff; his buffeting makes us feel our need of heavenly grace; his infliction of loss and disease weans from the world and teaches submission to the will of God. Such discipline is not a pleasant thing for the erring one. The patient does not like the surgeon"s knife; but if it cuts out a cancer or amputates a diseased limb, and thereby saves the whole body, it is endured for the sake of the good it effects. Better that the flesh be scorched by the fire of chastisement, if thereby the soul be saved in the day of Christ. We may gather from 2Co_7:8-12 that in this case the severe discipline produced the desired effect.

(2) As regards the Church, discipline is a protective measure. This one flagrant sinner, suffered to remain amongst them, would act as a corrupting leaven upon the rest. Others would be emboldened to pursue similar courses, until at length the disease would infect the whole body. B.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

THE CASE OF SHAMEFUL SIN

(Also in 2Co_2:5-11; 2Co_7:8-12.)

1Co_5:1. Commonly.—“Actually” (; widely accepted). Among you.—Join with “there is,” not with “reported.” News not only brought by Chloe’s people (1Co_1:11); more widely spread, reaching Paul from other quarters also. “Such cases not unknown in Roman society, but regarded with horror. Cic., Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, ‘O mulieris scelus incredibile, et præter hanc unam in vita omni inauditum’ ” (Stanley and Farrar, aptly). This agrees with the true reading; “named” omitted. Father’s wife.—A living, injured husband (2Co_7:12); probably (not certainly) the father. Hath.—Euphemistic for actual, married possession.

1Co_5:2.—Prefer affirmative to interrogative form (Ellicott, with Auth., against many moderns). Puffed up.—Not about this, but as in 1Co_4:6. Q.d. “Even this has not pricked the bladder of your inflation, of which I have been speaking to you! Spite of the occurrence of this in your midst, ye are still,” etc. Observe spiritual and intellectual pretensions of highest order, not accompanied by any sufficient, even elementary, moral sensibility! (See Appended Note, from Farrar.) Observe “Did … had done.”

1Co_5:3. Absent.—At Ephesus. Present in spirit.—Not the Holy Spirit. Evans puts very strong meaning into phrase: “It appears from this and from other texts that Paul’s own spirit, illumined … and vivified by the Divine, must have been endowed on certain occasions with a more than ordinary insight into the state of a Church at a distance.” He lays (too much?) stress on Col_2:5. “We may infer, then, that St. Paul could on occasions exercise this spiritual gift of supernatural immediate intuition even as our Lord on earth in His own greater measure did when He saw Nathanael, etc. (Joh_1:51). Elisha: ‘Went not my heart with thee?’ If Elisha, why not St. Paul?” Judged.—Word in itself neutral = “have given my decision.” Sentence held—as if unwilling to let fall—till 1Co_5:5.

1Co_5:4.—See Homiletic Analysis.

1Co_5:5.—

1. A physical penalty (viz. sickness supernaturally, directly, inflicted by Paul; which might have been fatal, but as directly, supernaturally, was remitted on the repentance of the offender). So Ananias and Sapphira. Bar-Jesus (Acts 12). Such visitation Simon at Samaria feared (Act_8:24). Paul exercised the power much later on (1Ti_1:20) on Hymenæus and Alexander.

2. Consequences more than mere exclusion from Eucharist or the Church. 3. “Many sickly” at Corinth, “many sleep” (1Co_11:30); i.e. other cases of this form of physical, Divine, chastisement, even of death.

4. See homiletic treatment, further. N.B. “spirit,” not “soul.”

1Co_5:6.—Evans: “Is this a time to parade your lofty privileges of saintly kingship, or to flaunt and flourish your Christian wisdom embroidered with worldly philosophy, when this scandal of the Church stares you in the face? Theological pomp … a moral plague begun.” Leaven.—Proverbial, as in Gal_5:9. Leaven (except in Mat_13:33), an illustration of the pervasive working of evil. The man, and the principle of his action, both included in the “leaven.”

1Co_5:7.—In Exo_12:15 sqq. are found two ideas: “No leaven,” “cut off” an offender. Hence the connection of thought. Perhaps emphasised by an actual or recent Passover celebration (letter written soon before Pentecost, 1Co_16:8); but too precarious to make these allusions give a very definite date. “Ye are unleavened” does not necessarily mean more than, “Ideally ye are, as being a Christian Church at all.” Purge out.—“On the evening [of the 13th] commenced the 14th of Nisan, when a solemn search was made with lighted candle through each house for any leaven that might be hidden or have fallen aside by accident. Such was put by in a safe place, and afterwards destroyed with the rest” (Edersheim, Life of Jesus, ii. 480; and he adds in a note:) “The Jerusalem Talmud gives the most minute details of the places in which search is to be made. One Rabbi proposed that the search should be repeated at three different times!” Our passover.—“Our”; cf. “We (also) have an altar” (Heb_13:10). Omit “for us.” Sacrificed.—True idea; word, however, does not necessarily mean more than “slain.” “Vers. 6–8 suggest the practical use and probable design of the Mosaic ritual” (Beet).

1Co_5:8. Malice.—Not in modern, narrow, sense of mischievous, personal animosity. Broader; “vitiositas,” evil-heartedness; opposed to “sincerity,” the transparent-heartedness in which is “no darkness at all.” Truth.—A word (opposed to wickedness) of the Johannean dialect; but Paul and John “agree in one.”

1Co_5:9. In a [lost] epistle.—[No theological difficulty here. A vast amount of literary material (e.g. Chronicles of Kings of Judah and Israel; or the incompletely compiled material for Gospels of which Luke speaks—not necessarily unreliable accounts) connected with the facts of Revelation has perished. All has been preserved which was needful to serve, or perhaps could serve, the purpose of the Spirit of God in conveying an “official,” Divine, account of the history and meaning and future of God’s Redemption-scheme. These two letters to Corinth, under Him, written for preservation. Any other, having answered its temporary purpose, could be left to the fate of ordinary private letters. All of any permanent value in the lost material is in these preserved.] For a lost epistle,

(1) 1Co_5:2; 1Co_5:6 are not specific enough to be the injunction referred to;

(2) same words in 2Co_7:8 refer to a previous (this first) letter;

(3) “now” contrasts with something written before (but query this?). Against,

(1) no trace of it, unless here;

(2) “I wrote,” explained as epistolary aorist;

(3) doctrinal presumption against the loss of anything from an inspired pen. (More fully discussed in the Introduction.)

1Co_5:10. Covetous.—Paul’s severe estimate of this sin. In Romans 7 regarded as in some sort the typical sin. “The accursed desire of having.” A craving for more, particularly that “more” which is possession of others. (Yet not necessarily this. Cf. Luk_12:15, which shows that covetousness may as well be displayed in the spirit in which a man seeks, and holds, his own.) A cuttle-fish sin with many tentacles; in the case at Corinth reaching out for, not money, but another man’s wife. Idolater.—Earliest-known use of the Greek word here employed.

1Co_5:11. Brother.—In the technical sense, meaning “a Christian.” Presumably, therefore, such a man’s “idolatry” only extended to joining in the heathen public banquets. Cf. “covetousness which is idolatry” (Col_3:5). To eat.—Not merely at the Lord’s Supper, but in any voluntary intercourse in private life.

1Co_5:12. Judging.—In the sense of exercising a right to pronounce and execute a sentence.

1Co_5:13.—“Let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican.” Relegate him to the “world” “without,” to which he really belongs. Yet there God will “judge” him, as one of “those without,” by my sentence (1Co_5:5), which will still operate on him “in the world” if so be that he may repent and, at least “in spirit,” be found amongst those “within” once more, “in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—Whole Chapter

I. The dishonour of the Church (1Co_5:1-2).

II. The discipline of the Church (1Co_5:3-5).

III. The duty of the Church towards its Lord (1Co_5:6-8).

IV. The duty of the Church towards the outside world (1Co_5:9-13).

I.

1. How early manifested the impossibility of making the Church, as men reckon its census, comprise exactly the same persons, neither more nor fewer, as does the Church whose census Christ takes! The distinction between the Real and the Nominal; between the Church which is by spiritual union His Body and the Church which is only a baptized Community holding, generally, the same Creed. As if the very Church institution itself were “made subject to vanity” (Rom_8:20), like all other creaturely, earthly life; “vanity” being, for the creature, “thwarted development, stunted growth, subjection to something worse than perishableness, bondage to something worse than decay” (Ellicott, Dest. of the Creature, lect. i.); or as the word radically suggests, “A yearning after an ideal, often nearly attaining, yet somehow doomed always to miss.” The Master foretold it: the tares spring up amongst the wheat; the bad fish are caught in the sweep of the drag-net of the Gospel invitation; at least one guest without a wedding garment sits down at table with the rest, hoping to enjoy the feast. It is a long way from the Church of (say) Eph_2:1-10 to the Church in Corinth, amongst whose members was this flagrant sinner. He will never join a Church who waits for a perfect one.

2. How serious the dishonour to the Church itself! No grave looks so black as that which yawns dark, with new-fallen, untrodden snow around its mouth. Sin is never so black as when its darkness and corruption open dark in the midst of a Church. It is high honour to belong to Christ; but the honour brings commensurate responsibility. God’s appeal is: “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy” (Lev_11:44; 1Pe_1:16). [“For” means:

(1) Vindicate your relationship to Me; show the “family likeness,” which is holiness; for your own sake, that your “evidence” may be strengthened.

(2) Remember the honour of being Mine. Your character involves Mine; the world will judge of Me and of religion by you. I am holy; take care therefore that you are holy, in friendships, pleasures, bearing, character, all.

(3) Make possible the communion I desire and design for you. But you must needs, then, be holy, for I am holy.] Here is a Church involved by one of its members in sin almost unheard of, and always abhorred, in the world. The Church sinks lower than the world! Often its reproach still. Business men complain that “if they find a shabby thing done, a Church does it,” etc. They are not always too just to the Church. Yet more is rightly expected than from the world. But too much is sometimes expected; no fair allowance is made for fallible judgments, and for the almost inevitable complication arising from corporate, committee action, rather than personal. Often difficult to bring evidence sufficient for action in a Church court. Yet the Church should pique herself upon her honour; should make a point of being extra careful, especially in dealing with finance, or with sin within its own membership. “You carry Cæsar and his fortunes;” “You carry Christ and His character.”

3. And if the Church connive at or, [as some here understand] defend and glory in, the wrong, how much greater the dishonour. It is a sign of bad health when evil is tolerated; it means that zeal, watchfulness, love, purity, all, are low. May mean, in some cases, a wicked regard for a “respectable,” “important” offender. Health shows always in a sensitive repugnance to, recoil from, resistance of, evil. Flings it off, as a hand tosses off the burning coal. Instinctively shrinks with pain from even mental touch with it. A healthy body has no rest until it has expelled the very last piece of diseased bone. “Canst not bear them that are evil,” is put by Christ in the forefront of the good things He says (and says first) about, and to, Ephesus (Rev_2:2). Happy when some voice, friendly, like Paul’s, becomes a kind of objective conscience, saying from without what the subjective conscience ought to be saying from within. Shame when the reproach of the unfriendly world has to awaken or educate the conscience of the Church!

4. A real difficulty, often felt, was not existent here. There was no room to doubt about the fact, or about the character of the fact. “Such a thing ought absolutely never to be heard of in connection with the Church; and absolutely nothing else is heard of” [so Stanley; but perhaps rather, “This is absolutely heard of everywhere”]. Many blemished in Christian character, or strongly, though not with too much discrimination, animadverted upon by the world, can scarcely be touched by Church discipline. Very elementary organizations, in their early days of small numbers and intimate mutual knowledge, can keep closer watch over each other, and can prudently suspend or cast out, for causes not wisely to be touched, or clearly to be judged upon, by larger, complex communities. Sin is a subtle thing, and the measure of responsibility is not always easy to gauge, for admonition or formal sentence. Tares and wheat are at some stages not easy to distinguish. This is not to condone criminal negligence, or weakness, or unfaithfulness to the Holy Ideal of a Church. The obligation lies to carry the practicable to the furthest reach of exactitude. Whenever a fair chance offers, as at Corinth—case clear, evidence abundant—not a moment’s hesitation should be permitted. To act, promptly, definitely, is due to the world, and to Christ. Wherever possible the Church should avowedly stand clear of all complicity with sin. Could here proceed safely, even upon “common report.”

5. A Church should “mourn” over sin. No amount of gifts, wealth, knowledge, numerical importance, prestige, can outweigh the dishonour. No room, no time, for complacent dwelling upon these, whilst sin remains uncondemned. Evil entering, spreading, infecting within, outweighs in seriousness of importance any material, social, numerical advantage. The first question should be, “Are we a holy people?” In days of weakness or decline, the first thing to do is to look for, confess, cast out, Church or personal sin. Joshua learned that there were times when it is of no avail to pray over defeat (Jos_7:10). “Get thee up (from the attitude of prayer); wherefore liest thou upon thy face?… Up; sanctify the people.” First purification, then prayer, then success. The Church must purge itself from its dishonour. How to proceed? As in II.

II. The discipline of the Church.—The constitution and procedure of a Church court. Admirably expository of Mat_18:19-20, with its significant “For.” [Twice, twice only, did Christ use His own new name, His “Church” (Mat_16:18; Mat_18:17). In first case referring to dangers from without; in second to difficulties arising within. Mat_18:19 true, and fully applicable to all Church gatherings, but primarily deals with disciplinary gatherings (e.g. about an “offending brother”).] Notice:—

1. The fundamental thing: “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [In Matthew (ubi supr.) lit. “unto the name.” Here, “in.” “Unto” pictorially sets forth the gathering together toward it, as the central point and rallying-place and object of their assembling. Here the movement towards is over; the Church is assembled “in the name.”] This differentiates the gathering from all other meetings of Christian men. Two meet in street; talk of business, family, etc.; no difference between such a meeting and that of many worldly men round them. They meet in Parliament, or on boards of societies, even philanthropic; but their meeting even thus is not a gathering of the Church. But, so soon as they meet “unto His name,” and as long as they meet “in His name,” then a distinctively Church assembly is constituted,—if even of “two or three,”—having all the character, privileges, prerogatives, which belong to the Church. Worship, or business, begins when “His name” is made definitely the object of the gathering. [Cf. the ways of formally opening courts of judicature. In Russia a small, crowned baton lies by the magistrate, who sits under a portrait of the Czar. He sets this baton on end, by his side. That is the emperor come to judgment: “The court is sitting.”] That Head of the Church, who is revealed by “His name,” is the fountain of authority and wisdom in action. “Where two or three are gathered, … there am I; (and therefore) what they agree on earth to ask shall be done of My Father.”

2. This carries with it authority to judge, and “power” (1Co_5:3) to execute sentence.—The “power” of the Lord Jesus Himself is there. If “he that hath done this thing” is visited with judicial sickness by Paul and the assembled Church (for the “spirit” of Paul is assembled with those who are gathered together [in counting those present don’t leave out Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ, both are really there]), it is “this name, through faith in His name, hath made this man” sick (cf. the reversed parallel of Act_3:16. Paul might have said, “Why look ye on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to” sicken?) [All this is normal, except the presence of Paul “in spirit,” presumably in order, by his special Apostolic, miracle-working gift, to inflict the extraordinary, abnormal sentence. The rest is essential to every true gathering, in due Church meeting assembled. The “Name of their Lord” is their “objective.” Around It they gather. It gives the meeting special character, cohesion, unity, for Himself is there amongst them. How often loyal hearts go homeward saying, “We have been very near to our Lord there”!] [Any questions as to the seat of authority to excommunicate, are not to be discussed or decided, with any fairness, upon the facts of an elementary time like this. As the structure of the Church grew more complex, by similar specialisation of organ and function to that seen in nature, the meeting for discipline conveniently became, in principle, a disciplinary “committee” of the Church, variously constituted, either advisory to the whole Church, or the depository of its power and the executive on its behalf. All these are matters of prudential, variable regulation. The only appearance of vital principle is in the fact that Paul makes the sentence his own: “I have judged.” The beginning of the pastoral office, and prerogative of admitting to, and excluding from, the visible fold. Yet not without the Church, as at least assessors. Perhaps rather as a jury, the pastor being a judge contributing to, and acting upon, their verdict as to the facts. In ultimate analysis, there is no “power” except that of the Lord Jesus present in the gathering.]

3. The sentence was exclusion, with physical accompaniments.—

(1) The very fact of sinning thus flagrantly, revealed a real self-exclusion to have taken place before Church action was taken. Such a man is no real member of the Church, though still on the roll and meeting with brethren, even at the Lord’s Table. [May have been really a member at first, but fallen through unwatchfulness and temptation. May have been a name too hastily enrolled; an unfit, not living, stone, in error or ignorance built into the “house” (1Pe_2:5). Or, the “living stone,” more likely, may have ceased to grow and live, and so falls out of its place in the living, growing fabric.]

(2) So then (a) excommunication here is the ascertaining, the public recognition, and the official registration, of a separation which has been already made by the man’s own sin, entailing the withdrawal of the “grieved Spirit of God” (Eph_4:30). [As, similarly, divorce is only permissible where it recognises and registers a real dissolution of the marriage bond by the sin of one of the parties.] Outside the fold the man is exposed—more directly, and without the help and safeguard of the means of grace, and of the prayers and fellowship of his brethren—to the working of the “lion going about,” apparently able to inflict physical harm. The demonology of Job 1; Job 2 is not lightly to be rejected, harmonising, as it does, with this inspired statement of Paul. Yet here, as there, Satan is but the servant of God, with limited power; and here God’s minister to mark His displeasure. If we had known this man, we should probably have seen, or suspected, nothing but a quite natural illness, which we might, or might not, have noticed was coincident with his exclusion from the Church. The Corinthians themselves seem to have had no idea of the moral causes behind the epidemic sickness, and the numerous deaths just now occurring amongst them (1Co_11:30). (The spiritual, whether good or evil, behind the natural is a pure matter of revelation; but, when revealed, is not an incredible, or unreasonable, explanation of the facts [cf. Trench, Miracles, in initio]. In fact, Bible histories stand distinguished from secular accounts of the same facts—whether actual, or such as might be written—in this, that we are in them taken “behind the scenes” and permitted to see God and the spiritual world actively influencing what in all ordinary cases we only see from the natural side. Bible history is a specimen history, analysed and dissected, so that in other, ordinary, cases we may see where to look for, and how to find, the spiritual behind the natural.) It is contemplated by Paul that this man may die, or even would die. The “flesh” (more than the body?), the seat and instrument of his sin, is to be destroyed [an inexact word, never to be pressed too much]. But the “spirit,” the part of manhood capable of God, and once in fact illumined and indwelt by the Spirit of God, is to be saved. The man, it is presumed, will be brought to consideration and repentance in his illness: “It was good for me that I was afflicted.” “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now,” etc. (Psa_119:67). “In the day of the Lord Jesus Christ” he will be found amongst the “saved of Jesus Christ.” [Cf. 2Co_1:14; 1Co_1:8; Php_2:16; Php_1:6 (“until”); 2Ti_1:12 (“against”); 1Th_5:23 (“in the coming”).] (b) The object of excommunication is, quâ the Church, the public clearing of it from all suspicion of complicity with, or toleration of, sin, and the securing from dishonour the very name of Christ; quâ the offender, to make his conscience see the gravity of sin, to arouse to repentance and to amendment (where opportunity offers), and thus to make possible the way for restored communion with God and man. Must not be vindictive, but judicial, and (if possible) reformatory: hence (c) The method, extends only to exclusion from formal connection and from privileges of membership; but not to any attempt to follow a man outside with any direct infliction of temporal, or· social, or personal penalties (1Co_5:12-13 apply also to an excluded “brother”). Any consequences that follow exclusion should only be of God’s own infliction, generally in the ordinary course of His chastening providence. [Paul’s action in this case was rather the action of God, by His specially accredited and empowered messenger, than anything analogous to the ordinary action of the Church. No precedent in it for ecclesiastical power attempting to pursue into the secular sphere the life, goods, family, of an offender; least of all, of an offender against “doctrine” only.] This is a good case of “binding”; as 2Co_2:7 is of “loosing.”

III. Duty of the Church towards its Lord.—

1. The exodus of the new Israel is now in progress.—In transit from Egypt to Canaan. A very real deliverance has been accomplished. The old bondage has been broken (Rom_6:14, “Sin shall not have dominion over you”). We have had our song of deliverance by the Red Sea. We have had our Sinai, only now the law is written within, on our own hearts. We shall have our Canaan (Heb_4:9). A day of redemption lies behind us; another, more complete, “day of redemption” before us (Eph_4:30). [Divine history repeats itself; or, reversing order of thought, anticipates itself. The history of Redemption, extending through the ages, has special points at which it summarises itself, on a small scale gathering up all the essential features of the whole process. The Author, both of the Facts and of the Record of them, traced the earlier stages or embodiments of Redemption on lines which are the basal lines of the later, more fully detailed, perfect stage and embodiment in the historical Work of Christ and the founding and history of His Church. This is not a mere happy adaptation of a piece of ancient history (or of a pretty myth of the past). It is one of the thousand illustrations, which gather year by year with cumulative force of evidence to every student of the Bible, of the profound internal harmony, arising from the organic unity, of the Redemption record. This is a case of the authentic discovery and development of the full meaning of the old story and Deliverance. We are thus told, on His own authority, what God “had in His view” in the earlier incidents. The Passover and Exodus (like all in Creation, Col_1:16) were “created in Christ.” His own warrant for this is abundant: “The blood of the new covenant” (the blood of the old, Exo_24:8); His cross is the uplifting of the serpent (Joh_3:14); He is the manna (Joh_6:32-33); a pillar of fire to His people (“followeth Me shall not walk in darkness,” ib. Joh_8:12); the water from the rock (Joh_7:38); [as He is also Jacob’s ladder, Joh_1:51; and John finds Him in a trivial regulation about the integrity of the body of the Paschal Lamb, Joh_19:36; Exo_12:46; Psa_34:20]. [Not in pre-resurrection days, but afterwards, when all time or occasion for (alleged) ad homines arguments from, and use of, the Old Testament Scriptures had passed away, and He spoke as having already begun the eternal life of the Incarnate Son, He found Himself in all the Scriptures (Luk_24:27; Luk_24:43-47)].] All the points of prerogative, distinction, privilege, of the Old Israel reappear in the New, purified from their temporary, pedagogic accompaniments. We have a sanctuary and a Shekinah (Joh_1:14; Joh_2:21. N.B. when its fleshly veil was rent, the accompanying type had its veil rent too); we have a Sabbath; we have the “circumcision of Christ” (Col_2:11); we have our “altar” (Heb_13:10). So we have a Passover lamb and a Passover supper, the birthday “feast” of the New Israel. (See Appended Note from Fairbairn.) [Fairbairn, Typology, ii. 442 sqq., very full here. The Passover lamb must not be denied to be a real sacrifice in any fear of giving support to “high” doctrine re the Lord’s Supper. Twice God calls it “sacrifice” (Exo_23:18; Exo_34:25).] In its combination of sacrifice for release from bondage, of atoning sacrifice for sin, and of feast for sustenance on pilgrimage, it best (better than even the ordinary peace offering) exhibits the whole truth about the Passover character of Christ and His work. The Cross and the Supper combine to exhibit the same whole truth for us. “Is slain.” Then why remain in bondage, with the door open to go out?

2. One emphatic law of the old ordinance is in principle continued unrepealed.—“No leaven with the Passover.” The sprinkling of the blood was not certainly continued in the post-Exodus celebrations. The bitter herbs and the rigorous search for leaven were essential, and continued, with increased stringency of observance, to the last. [Good reason for thinking that, like the modern Samaritan Passover lamb, that of Paul’s day was roasted on a cruciform spit of wood. But no Divine ordaining in this, so far as we know.] The Passover must not be killed “upon leaven” (so Exo_34:25, literally). “The putting away of the leaven, that there might be the use only of unleavened bread, may also be regarded as carrying some respect to the circumstances of the people at the first institution of the feast.… But there can be no doubt that it mainly pointed, as already shown in connection with the meat offering, to holiness in heart and conduct, which became the ransomed people of the Lord—the incorrupt sincerity and truth that should appear in all their behaviour. Hence, while the bitter herbs were only to be eaten with the lamb itself [as the tears of repentance belong only to the first stage of the spiritual life, the first appropriation of Christ as the soul’s deliverer from bondage and from guilt], the unleavened bread was to be used through the whole seven days of the feast—the primary sabbatical circle—as a sign that the religious and moral purity which it imaged was to be their abiding and settled character. It taught in symbol what is now directly revealed, when it is declared that the end for which Christ died is that He might redeem to Himself a people who must put off the old man with his evil deeds, and be created anew after the image of God” (Fairbairn). “Sin is a malignant leaven—

(1) In its nature; corrupting, spreading, assimilating;

(2) In its effects upon communities, upon individuals. It works—(a) constantly; (b) imperceptibly; (c) powerfully; (d) perniciously” (J. L., adapted). Preparation for partaking of Christ’s salvation at all involves this. No saving faith is possible where sincere repentance, and (as opportunity serves) “works meet for repentance,” are not found. Many a seeker looks for peace in vain. He has not put away sin. He may not share in the Passover deliverance. The true preparation for approaching the Lord’s Table is a careful examination of heart and life, carrying with us the “candle of the Lord,” searching into every suspected, dark place. To turn away from what might possibly lead to an unwelcome discovery, lest, seeing something too clearly, conscience should constrain us to yield it up, whereas we do not wish to see that obligation, is moral dishonesty; there is something of the “leaven” in it; everything should be “faced out,” swept out, renounced, before we sit down at Table with our Lord in His Supper [e.g. any unforgiving temper towards some fellow-communicant]. We have here a rule of our habitual Christian life. Our Exodus is always in progress. We live in a continuous Passover-tide and a continuous Pentecost, as hereafter we shall celebrate a continuous Feast of Tabernacles. [See the symbolism of Tabernacles in Rev_7:9.] We belong to a people of whose whole life this is one “note,” “Ye are unleavened.” Our whole life is a perpetual “keeping of the feast.” To retain the initial deliverance of our life, to enjoy a perpetual communion with our Lord, to have His Supper continually celebrated with our heart (Rev_3:20), there must be a perpetual self-cleansing from the leaven, a self-examination for it, an unsparing outsweeping of all. Holiness, perfected holiness (2Co_7:1), is the norm of the life of deliverance by, and of communion with, the dying, living, atoning, life-sustaining, Passover Lamb of our age, “even Christ.” We have here a rule of the habitual Church life. “No leaven tolerated.” Seek it out; watch for it; cast it, cast persons, out with unsparing strictness of discipline. If the Church is to be an Israel at all, a covenant people of God to-day; if it is not to return in fact to the world, out of whose Egypt God “has called” both “His Son” and His Church (Mat_2:15); if there is to be a Table in the midst of its gatherings at which the Head will join His members at the Supper; if they are to have Him present in their assemblies for discipline or worship,—let them purge away Sin, personal or corporate. (Heart-sin above all, 1Co_5:8.)

3. Happy consequences of such purification.—

(1) “We keep the Feast,—the Feast! A festival life ours, if we will. Our slain Lamb is, between us and God, a perpetually renewed pledge of a life of liberty, larger and larger, from all bondage, and fear, and guilt, and danger, and sin.

(2) “We are a new lump.” [Figure changes as between this and 1Co_5:7. Rather here, as in Mat_13:33, the pervasive, assimilating effect of leaven, without the evil connotation.] The Church can then leaven the world. Modern science has shown this side of the fermentative process; not only a token or accompaniment of “corruption,” the break-up of old combinations of matter when “death” has taken place, but also such a break-up by means of a host of minute organisms working towards new combinations, suitable for the sustenance, or to be the vehicle, of new life. For this, in part, does the Lord of the Church put It into the midst of the World. The world is to be saved mediately, through the Church [which actually fastened upon the corrupting, dissolving elements of society in the Roman Empire, and rearranged and reorganised them, to be the abode of the new Christianised life]. Every sinful member, every sinful practice, tolerated, robs the “new lump” of its efficiency for the Lord’s purpose. To purge out the old leaven [e.g. by excommunication] is Duty towards the Church’s Lord, who is the slain Passover Lamb always in its midst.

IV. The duty of the Church towards the outside world.—

1. Observe the sharp distinction, “within,” “without,” and this not as a mere accident of attachment to a society or community or non-attachment; goes deeper—“brethren,” “the world.” It lies in the very word ἐκκλησία, they who are of the Church are not only “called,” but “called out.” [Admirably analogous to the classical, political use of the word: “The lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all … possessed of the rights of citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs, … summoned out of the whole population; a large, but at the same time a select, portion of it, including neither the populace, nor strangers, nor yet those who had forfeited their civic rights” (Trench, Syn., § 1).] In a world where all nations are God’s, one nation was called to His side to be His “peculiar people” (Tit_2:14; from Deu_7:6, etc.; cf. 1Pe_2:9; Isa_41:9). “His very own” where all are “His own.” Children, where the rest are at best only servants, though all are of His household, and all regarded with real interest and care. An inner circle of love and favour and blessing.

2. The boundary, dividing, inclusive, exclusive, line is not always easy to locate. The general direction of it, the principles upon which it is laid down, are obvious and clear, but it is difficult to allot individuals as “without” or “within.” The line is by no means coincident with that traced by Church enrolment and discipline. All methods of Church membership, actual or proposed, are obnoxious to the criticism that they exclude some who are really “within,” and, far more frequently, include, admit, retain, many of those “without.” To eye of Son of Man “sheep” and “goats” are definitely distinguishable. None belongs to neither. [“Yes; I know about the ‘sheep’ and the ‘goats.’ But what about the ‘alpacas’? These are my difficulty,” said half-jestingly, half-seriously, a man of the world.] As a rule, the true line lies within the mapped line of the ecclesiastical geography, sometimes far within. [As the map-makers say, there is an “Ecclesia Proper” and an “Ecclesian World”; cf. “China Proper” and “Chinese Empire,” half attached, loosely held, slightly ruled; “Russia Proper” and the vague “Russia in Asia” or “Russian Empire.”]

3. Tests nevertheless are very definite, many-sided. (a) E.g. put experimentally; take two men, closely parallel in life; difficult to lay finger on anything “wrong” in the man “of the world”; admirable, amiable, excellent in many ways; “comparing (so it is said) favourably with some of the Church,” “better man than your ‘converted’ man.” Unhappily true sometimes; yet go back, dig down to the foundation of both lives. The less admirable (pity!) has behind him a time when he first felt “conviction of sin” [the introduction to a new world, of “things spiritual,” to which the (best type of) “natural” man is a stranger]; knows himself “a sinner”; did then, and still does, make Christ and His work the basis of all life and hope before God. The more admirable, building a far better superstructure, has no such event, no such moral crisis, no such beginning of new, Spirit-taught knowledge; does not understand “sin,” nor himself “a sinner”; underneath the life-building there is no Christ for a sole reliance, (b) Illustrate by this: Before the knowledge of the mechanism of (the newly invented) clocks had travelled from Germany into Italy, the advantages of a public, far-visible dial with hands was so obvious, that many Italian cities set these up; the hands were kept right, by constant adjustment, by an attendant provided with a water-clock or sand-glass. Such “correct time” is the ideal and method of the righteousness of those “without.” [Was very much the righteousness of an Israelite. Was exactly the “righteousness of scribes and Pharisees.”] [It is possible to secure any number of right acts by right regulation from without, according to an external code, which must be very detailed, a code of “cases of conscience,” with new rules for every case that arises.] Italy very soon learned to keep the hands right by mechanism within, in much more exact and perfect fashion, as right at the seconds as at the hours. God secures from within “correct time,” righteousness of life, in those “within”; a new law and a new force are put into the heart. Sometimes a less perfect “time” is kept (pity!), but at least the true method is being made the basis of life. [Or, changing figure a little, in a man “within” the hands go, not too regularly, but at least in right direction now, and in obedience to a new law and power within.] (c) Most absolutely: What is the end of life? What is its relation to Christ? To the man “within,” “To live is (more or less definitely and faithfully) Christ.” The real, deep, fundamental test is there: what is the relation of the heart and the activities to Christ? Even when both men do what appears identically same thing, a “great gulf fixed” of distinction opens up underneath, in reply to that question.

2. Intercourse between “within” and “without,” how regulated.—

(1) Sad that it should need “regulation.” A sad tone rings through the Scripture use of “world.” A sadness as of a father who must forbid intercourse between some of his children and the rest; the tone in which, if mentioned at all, one is spoken of whose picture hangs with its face to the wall, in the home. Why cannot “church” and “world,” “within,” “without,” mingle freely, fraternise without “regulation” and “restriction”? “What is wrong with the world? Is it not God’s world? Surely it is not the devil’s?” True; and all the beauty, etc., is for the children of God: “all yours” (see 1Co_3:22). The history of the world [both as κόσμος and αἰών] is flowing in a channel of God’s digging, and towards God’s destination for it. Yet the word is ethical; the “world” is not friendly, or neutral, but alienated, inimical, dangerous. The “world” is the worldly world, in the New Testament, and in fact. (See Appended Note from Trench.)

(2) Some intercourse is necessary. The division-line parts “chief friends,” husband and wife; runs through the midst of homes, friendly circles, groups of relatives; through offices, schools, workshops, markets; parting, sorting out, individuals “right” and “left.” Christianity does not command any forced or unnatural breaking of these bonds; “then must ye needs go out of the world.” [N.B. this said as though monastic, eremitic, celibate segregation were not at all a thing to be contemplated for Christians. To argue this from his words were a reductio ad absurdum; so Paul feels.] The world wants, God wants, the Church in the world, the Christian in the home, in the market, on the bench, on the board, in the seat in Parliament. Is there not a danger to the man “within”? Yet it may be a training and a blessing; is meant to be a blessing to those “without.” Even Christian benevolence will mean much intercourse.

(3) Much more is voluntary, and should be modelled after the pattern of Christ’s own. [“Ye are not of the world, even as (i.e. in the same way as, and with the same absoluteness of negation) I am not” (Joh_17:19). Examine His “unworldliness.”] (a) John Baptist was Elijah in his ascetic aloofness from men; Christ was Elisha in His free intercourse with men. Christ accepted invitations from, ate at table of, Pharisee, publican, sinner (though He was most “at home” at Bethany). But always went in and bore Himself there as the Physician. When the Christian man finds he can do no good, and may himself suffer harm (Christ could not suffer any), he must abstain altogether or withdraw. (b) Deep separateness of origin (“of the world,” “not of”) is the true safeguard for the Christian, the true source of any power for good, in any voluntary intercourse. There should be no sympathy of aim, or community of judgment; no participation, in business or pleasure, which indicates, or ministers to, worldliness of temper, spirit, heart. [Rom_12:1-3, “conformity” may indicate, or assist, an evil metamorphosis. A holy metamorphosis within will save from any wrong “conformity” without.] (c) This affects intimacies, friendships, amusements, marriage.

3. Duty of Church towards world.—

(1) To endeavour to fulfil all the purposes for which God calls out a Church, and yet leaves it in the world. The very separateness is a witness for God; instrumentally it may “convict the world of sin.” [As a straight-edge convicts a hand-drawn line, when laid down beside it.] Hence

(2) Should “judge” those “within” with unsparing faithfulness. Sin in the world must often be left alone, though condemned by testimony and practice. Sin in the Church must be vigorously, promptly, dealt with.

(3) Should not attempt to judge those without. [No question of passing mental or conscientious “judgment.” Cannot help having an opinion, passing a judgment, upon the right or wrong of the life or character of those without. Folly to say, “You should not judge so strictly, should not judge at all.” The awakened sense of “righteousness” and of “sin” makes a mental, moral verdict a necessity. Bad sign of the Church’s own life if it did not “judge” and “condemn” the world’s life and principles. All such “judgments” are of course fallible, on (necessarily) imperfect data; a Christian man will be modest, self-diffident, only condemning severely under the strongest compulsion of evident fact. Not this, but] the Church should not attempt any sort of punitive discipline upon the outside community. [As the “world” should have no disciplinary power within the Church.] The sphere of “the State” is crime in the citizen—Christian or non-Christian; the sphere of the Church is sin in the member. The attempt in Puritan England and Puritan New England to use Church machinery, or Church methods and code, to enforce a Church discipline upon the morals and liberties of even those “without,” broke down. As things are we must leave sin in those “without” to the “judgment” and chastisement of God. The world cannot yet be made a theocracy. It is a difficult, delicate question, needing all the sense and grace a Christian father and mother possess and can obtain, how far the home may be made a little theocracy, how far the Christian should enforce upon non-Christian children or servants, the Christian rule of life and its sanctions, so “judging those without.”

HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS

1Co_5:7. “Christ our Passover,” etc. I. The Victim. II. The Sacrifice. III. Its efficacy. IV. Its appropriation.—[J. L.]

1Co_5:7-9. Observe the necessity of: I. Repentance. II. Faith in Christ. III. A holy life.—[J. L.]

1Co_5:7-9. Our Christian Life a Perpetual Passover-keeping.—A continuous entering into liberty from Egyptian bondage, into a journey homewards with God for our Guide. Three features always stamped upon it:—

I. The cleansing of the heart.—Must “make ready the upper room,” if Christ is to enter and sup with us, as the perpetual benediction of our life. Not done once for all in the repentance which inaugurated our new life. New discoveries as we carry the candle into the darker corners. We get a keener eye to see “leaven,” as years go on.

II. Slaying the lamb.—This done once for all, but not then done with. The Atonement a perpetually new basis of each new day’s life of grace. However high we raise the superstructure, yet this the foundation always. Even in heaven we shall be only sinners whose ground of acceptance is the merit of the slain Lamb. [Too often there is a long parenthesis in the midst of life’s journey—as in the wilderness sojourn of Israel—during which no Passover is celebrated. All the sense of believing rest in the work of the Lamb of God, all the practical efficacy of it in our life, is gathered up around the start on the journey and the eve of entering Canaan; a long, barren, unbelieving, unfaithful tract stretches between.]

III. Eating the supper.—This characteristic also to be stamped upon the whole Christian course. Not only a continuous resting upon an atonement which brings deliverance from bondage, but a continuous “peace-offering” feast, a continuous communion with Him who is the Victim, the Supper, the Host at the table—all in one.

1Co_5:13. The judgment of the Church and the judgment of God. I. One limited; other universal. II. Partial; absolute. III. Disciplinary; judicial. IV. May err; infallible. V. Provisional; final. VI. Temporary in effects; eternal.—[J. L.]

1Co_5:9-13. (a) I. In the Church; not of the Church. II. In the world; not of the world.

Or (b) I. Separation from the Church. II. Separateness from the world.

APPENDED NOTES

1Co_5:2.—Farrar thinks that they were “puffed up” and “boasted” about this very matter. “Though the very Pagans execrated this atrocity, yet he had not been expelled from the Christian communion, nor even made to do penance in it, but had found brethren ready, not merely to palliate his offence, but actually to plume themselves upon leaving it unpunished. This man seems to have been a person of distinction and influence, whom it was advantageous to a Church, largely composed of slaves and women, to count among them.” (Query, all this?) “Doubtless (?) this had facilitated his condonation, which may have been founded on some Antinomian plea of Christian liberty; or on some Rabbinic notion that old ties were rendered non-existent by the new conditions of a proselyte” (something in this); “or by peculiarities of circumstance unknown to us. But though this person was the most notorious, he was by no means the only offender, and there were Corinthian Christians—even many of them—who were impenitently guilty of un-cleanness, fornication, and lasciviousness” (1Co_5:11; 1Co_6:15-18; 1Co_10:8; 1Co_15:33-34). (Farrar, St. Paul, in loc.)

1Co_5:7.—“Another and still higher element of prophetical import mixed with that singular work of God, which gave rise to the institution of the Passover. For the earthly relations then existing, and the operations of God in connection with them, were framed on purpose to represent and foreshadow corresponding but increasingly superior ones connected with the work and kingdom of Christ. And as all adverse power, though rising here to its most desperate and malignant working, was destined to be put down by Christ, that the salvation of His Church might be finally and for ever accomplished, so the redemption from the land of Egypt, with its ever-recurring memorial, necessarily contained the germ and promise of what was to come; the lamb perpetually offered to commemorate the past pointed the expecting eye of faith to the Lamb of God, one day to be slain for the yet unatoned sins of the world; and only when it could be said, ‘Christ, our passover has been sacrificed,’ did the purpose of God, which lay enclosed as an embryo in the Paschal institution, reach its proper culmination.”—Fairbairn, “Typology,” ii. 445.

1Co_5:10. The World.—“(There are no [passages] which speak of the end of the κόσμος).… From the signification of κόσμος as the material world, which is not uncommon in Scripture (Mat_13:35; Joh_21:25; Rom_1:20), follow that of κόσμος as the sum total of the men living in the world (Joh_1:29; Joh_4:42; 2Co_5:19); and then upon this, and ethically, those out of the ἐκκλησία, the alienated from the life of God (Joh_1:10; 1Co_1:20-21; Jas_4:4; 1Jn_3:13).… Αἰών, … signifying time, comes presently to signify all which exists in the world under conditions of time; and then, more ethically, the course and current of this world’s affairs. But this course and current being full of sin, it is nothing wonderful that ‘this world’ (αἰών) like κόσμος, acquires presently in Scripture an evil significance.… All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, at any time current in the world, which it is impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale,—all this is included in the αἰών, which is, as Bengel has expressed it, the subtle informing spirit of the κόσμος, or world of men who are living alienated and apart from God.” Both words united in Eph_2:2 : “the age of this world.” “The God of this world,” 2Co_4:4; its anti-God. The “age” is the rule of the life of the men of the “world” (Eph_2:2, κατά). They are “men of the time,” that and nothing more.—Trench, “Syn.,” §lix.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

X—A SECOND INSTANCE OF DEFECTIVE CHRISTIAN SENTIMENT.—TOLERATION OF IMPURITY.—NEED OF CHURCH IN PURIFICATION

[A case of incest stated.—Call for Excommunication.—Its form and intent]

1Co_5:1-5

1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named [is not even1] among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2And ye are puffed up, [?] and have not [did not] rather mourned, [mourn], that he that hath done2 this deed might he taken away [om. away3] from among you [?]. 3For I verily, as4 absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning [om. concerning] him that hath so done3 this deed, 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [om. Christ5], when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, [om. Christ5]. 5To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.6

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Paul here turns to a second topic for animadversion, and what follows might well serve to take down still further the self-conceit of the Corinthians. [“This, practically speaking, forms the crisis of the whole Epistle. It is, as it were, the burst of the storm, the mutterings of which, as Chrysostom observes, had already been heard in the earlier chapters, and of which the echoes are still discernible, not only in this Epistle, but also in the second Epistle, the first half of which is nothing less than an endeavor to allay the excitement and confusion created by this severe remonstrance.” Stanley]. The passage is introduced abruptly without any conjunctive particle.

1Co_5:1. States the specific ground of complaint.—Commonly ὅλως: not indeed, nor, at all, as it can mean only in negative clauses; [nor “absolutely, as simply adding force to the assertion.” Stanley; nor, in short (Clericus), which Ols. says is the only second meaning that can be justified]; but, as in 1Co_6:7; 1Co_15:29 : Mat_5:34, in general. It belongs not to πορνε ία, fornication, but as an adverb to ακούεαι, is heard, and so to the whole clause. [“It implies, however, the general prevalence of the practice spoken of.” Olshausen. So Meyer, de Wette; and Hodge allows it. “The signification, certainly, implying that the matter was no doubtful rumor, but an evident fact (as Calvin, Beza and others), is contrary to the meaning of the word.” Meyer]—there is heard among you, ακούεται ἐνὑμῖν.—By this it is not simply meant, that there was some talk of the subject mentioned in their circles generally, but that the thing, of which the talk was, prevailed there; although this is only to be inferred from the context, and is not directly expressed. (It would then mean: ἐν ὑμῖν οὖσα εἶναι; the former, in case it was a correct report; the latter, if it were only a vague rumor). [The names of the informants are not specified, as in the former instance. It was a case of public rumor, and the sin so notorious as to need no vouchers. See Words.].—fornication, πορνεία.—[“The word is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh commandment.” Hodge]. Of these one in particular was singled out, of the grossest and most astounding sort, viz., of incest. This is introduced byκαί, which points to something special under a general head, and brings it in as a climax,—and indeed, or yea even,—with the repetition of the general term for the sake of emphasis,—such fornification, as not even among the Gentiles.—The ellipsis might be filled up most readily by: ‘is heard,’ or simply by: ‘is.’ [The Rec. text has ‘is named,’ which Alf. calls “a clumsy gloss taken from Eph_5:3.”] Paul here sets forth the unparalleled nature of the crime he was about to speak of, and the greatness of the disgrace which thereby fell upon the Christian Church—‘a holy people.’—That one has his father’s wife, i.e., his step-mother (μητρυιά)—comp. Lev_18:7-8—and this either as wife, or concubine. The word ἔχειν, to have, is used of both relations, as is seen by such passages as 1Co_7:2; 1Co_7:29; Mat_14:4; Mat_22:28; Joh_4:18. In this case it most probably stands for an illegitimate concubinal relation (comp. Osiander), which was also a ‘having,’ inasmuch as it was a habitual thing, as well as an act consummated (πράξας: having done, 1Co_5:2; and κατεργασάμενος: having perpetrated, 1Co_5:3).7 By the expression—‘his father’s wife,’ the wicked violation of the relation sustained to the father, is brought out more conspiculously than if he said simply ‘step-mother.’ The father, moreover, is to be considered as still living, (against Besser), and as a Christian. See 2Co_7:12, where the father is spoken of as one ‘that had suffered wrong’ (ἀδικηθείς), and where Paul says ‘he did not write on his account.’ The son, at all events, must have been a member of the church; the woman, however, not, since he, and not she, is made the subject of censure. Further questions, e. g., as to whether the man was a proselyte, and had proceeded on the Jewish maxim, that a person who had become “a new creature,” had severed himself from all former connections, and was at liberty to enter into new relations otherwise forbidden? may be suffered to rest. In speaking of the crime here mentioned as something not existing among the Gentiles, Paul does not mean to say that it never occurred in their history. Cases of this sort are indeed recorded, and tragedies have been founded upon them; but they are always spoken of as rare exceptions, that excited the utmost public horror. Cicero pro Cluentio: “Scelus incredibile, et præter hanc unam in omni vita inauditum.” (comp. Wetstein and others on this passage).

1Co_5:2. Expressions of astonishment at their conduct in view of the above fact.—And ye are puffed up?—[This and the following clause should be read as questions. So Calvin, Meyer, Alf., Words., et al.]. The ὑμεῖς, ye is emphatic, and points back to ἐν ὑμῖν, among you, q. d. ‘such a thing has occurred among you, and you are, etc. Questions of this sort are often introduced by καί, and, which here does not take the emphasis as though equivalent to: ‘and yet,’ but throws it forward on the word following. The assertion that they were puffed up, refers, not to 1Co_4:18, where this is affirmed only of some, but to 1Co_4:8, where he describes the whole Church as filled with the conceit of their spiritual perfection. A great mistake it would be to suppose (with Chrys., Theod., Grot.) that the incestuous person himself was the subject of their pride, on the ground that he was some distinguished teacher among them; or that Paul here alludes to the boasting of other parties over that to which the incestuous belonged.—The proper state of feeling which they ought to have manifested, is expressed in the negative question.—And did not—when ye first knew of the crime—rather mourn—i.e. mourn, that a member of theirbody had sunk so low, and the Church of the Lord, which ought to have been kept holy, had been thus defiled and dishonored. (The Aorist ἐπενθήσατε indicates the act, expressed by the present, as past and finished, as in ἐπιστεύσατε 1Co_3:5). This mourning, which has its source in a lively sense of the common interest which all have in what affects all, implied also a combined and energetic movement for the removal of the evil deplored,—in order that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you? ἵναἀρθῇ.—The ἵνα here is not ecbatic, but retains its proper telic force, “unto the end that he,” etc. The removal pointed to, must not be regarded as implying any Divine visitation, a cutting off by death for example, or the like; since it is clear from 1Co_5:13, that he only contemplated the excommunication of the guilty party by an act of the Church itself—an act to which their sorrow should have prompted them. Bengel says: “Ye had no sorrow to stir you up for the removal,” etc. The manner in which the party under censure is designated, carries force: “he that hath done this deed”—έ̔ργον, facinus, this wicked deed.

1Co_5:3-5. That such sorrow, leading to such results, should have prevailed in the Church, he confirms by stating the decision, which he, on his part, had reached in the case. [“There is something in the involved structure of this sentence, which gives a strong impression of the emotion, anguish, and indignation with which it was written, and which vented itself in broken and disturbed periods, as it were per singultus.”—Words].—For I, for my part, ἐγὼμ ἒν.—The μὲν puts Paul in strong contrast with the Corinthians, who were so indifferent and remiss in the case. If we are to retainὡςof, as, it must be regarded as embracing in its force the two following participles, and belonging especially to the latter, ‘though absent in body, yet as present in spirit.’ This then reappears in the next clause without any qualifying term, and as carrying the emphasis: κέκρικα ὡς παρών. The same contrast occurs in Col_2:5 : “For though I am absent from you in the flesh, yet in spirit I am present with you.” [Meyer, Words., Alf. omit the ὡς, as unauthorized. The sense is clearer without it—‘for I being absent in body, yet present in spirit.’ The participles state the facts in the case, and require no as implying similitude. This appears only in the next clause, where it properly belongs].—Absent in body, yet present in the spirit.—By ‘in the spirit’ we are not to understand the Holy Ghost (as Chrys. and others), but his own spirit, as contrasted with his body. Yet the spirit of the Apostle must not be thought of apart from the Divine illumination and energy which he enjoyed, and by means of which, even in his absence, he looked into and influenced the state of the Corinthian Church; although the τὸ πνεῦμα, the spirit designates even his spiritual nature in contrast with his physical. A similar case occurs in 2Ki_5:26, where Elisha says to Gehazi: “Went not my spirit with thee ?”—have already judged, ή̓δηκέκρικα.—(comp. on 1Co_2:2). “Already,”—this energetic and prompt conduct on the part of an absent person forms a contrast all the more striking with the slackness of those among whom the shameful scandal had occurred,—as present,—[Not, in spirit, for he was there already in spirit, but in body; ‘as though he were visibly among them to control and direct in the matter.’ So Meyer, Alf., Hodge].

[As the words which follow are brought under discussion as to their grammatical construction, it seems best, for the sake of perspicuity, to give them in full and translate them as they stand:—τὸν ὅυτω τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κνρίου ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῆ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ. lit,—him so having perpetrated this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus being gathered together, you and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to give such a one to Satan.—The first question is as to the proper connection of the first clause here: “him having perpetrated this thing.” In the E. V. this is taken as governed by some preposition understood, e. g., κατα, concerning—so Words. Others (Stanley) construe it as the direct object of the verb κέκρικα, judge]. In this case the sentence would read: ‘I have judged or passed sentence on him who has,’ etc. The best way, however, would be to regard it as the object of παραδοῦναι in 1Co_5:5, so that the τὸν τοιοῦτον, such a one, would then be merely the resumption of the same object under another form. [We should then translate, putting a colon after κέκρικα, ‘I have judged, that the person who has perpetrated this thing, ye in the name of the Lord Jesus, etc., do deliver such a one,’ etc.]. The reason for putting this objective clause first is to give it the emphasis, as bringing the guilty party more prominently in front. And the word ‘so’ is inserted for the sake of intensifying the enormity of the guilt incurred; and it points to certain aggravating circumstances well known to his readers,—“So shamefully, while called a brother.”—Bengel. We might also (with Osiander) here take in view both, the man’s shamlessness in perpetrating his crime and his utter disregard of his Christian obligations. The next question is about the proper connection of the subordinate clauses. These may be combined in four different ways. Either they may all be united with the principal verb παραδοῦναι, to deliver [Mosheim, Schrader and others], to which Bengel and others also join ὡς παρών, as present; or with the participial clause συναχθέντων, being assembled [Chrys., Theoph, Calvin]; or they may be connected partly with this and partly with the other, so that either ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ, in the name, etc., shall be joined to συναχθέντων, being assembled, and σὺν τῇ δυνάμει, with the power, to παραδοῦναι, to deliver [so Beza, Calov., Billr., Olsh.]; or precisely the reverse [Luther, Bengel, de Wette, Meyer, Alf., Hodge]. The last method seems the most suitable, viz: to unite the clause, “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (which stands first by way of emphasis, and which otherwise the analogy of Mat_18:20 would lead us to join with the participle, ‘being assembled’) with the main verb, as expressing the ground of the chief transaction, so that the act spoken of shall appear to rest on Jesus, the acknowledged Head of the Church, and upon His authority, and so pass for His act. (Com. 2Th_3:6; Act_3:6-16; and respecting the word ‘name,’ 1Co_1:2). As for the clause, “with the power of the Lord Jesus,” the very position of it makes it probable that this is to be connected with the participle, ‘being assembled’ and its adjuncts, since otherwise this participle would, in a most remarkable manner, be made to separate the more strictly qualifying terms of the main sentence. Besides it must be said that the phrase, “in the name of our Lord Jesus,” better serves to qualify the act of ‘delivering over to Satan,’ and includes also the force of the other phrase, “with the power of our Lord,” letting alone the fact, that in this way we avoid the accumulation of qualifying terms for the main verb (as well as for the participial clause, if both should be joined to this). Nevertheless, it is not to be overlooked that the phrase, “with the power of our Lord,” also serves to qualify the act of “delivering over;” yet not directly, but only as a component part of the clause where it occurs. The entire parenthesis will then mean, that the whole case should be decided in an assembly of the Church,8 where he would also be present in spirit;9 and that in this gathering they would, moreover, be accompanied by the power of the Lord Jesus for their assistance, (Σύν, with, designates association, where, however, the co-worker is not a simple instrumentality in the hand of the other; and δύναμις, power, denotes not merely: ‘disposing influence,’ as Meyer supposes, but: force, might, capability).10

But what are we to understand by ‘the delivering of such a one to Satan?’ That by this phrase excommunication is intended, is evident from 1Co_5:2 (“that he might be taken away from among you.”) and from 1Co_5:13 (“Wherefore put away, etc.). But that this is all the expression involves, is improbable from the fact that it is not elsewhere used in this sense. We meet it again only in 1Ti_1:20, where it appears, as here, to imply something more. Rather it would seem to convey the additional thought that those, who were ejected from the Church of God—a realm which, as such, is exempt from the dominion of Satan,—were given over again into Satan’s power, and unto his destructive influences; and that hence a certain control over these persons is granted him, viz., in so far as it may please the Lord, who ordains this lot for them through His Church and through the Apostolic office (Meyer). [But the question is, whether this was a miraculous subjection to the power of Satan, such as involved special evils and could be effected only by Apostolic authority, and so was peculiar to that age alone; or, whether it had regard to Satan only as the common source of the manifold miseries by Which men are scourged, and as the unwilling instrument of a Divine discipline over God’s children universally, and hence was something possible for all time, and takes place whenever a man is given over to suffer the bitter consequences of his vices, uncheered by the grace of God’s kingdom? The former is the view which has prevailed in the Romish Church from the earliest times, and it was much used to enhance the terrors of priestly excommunication and justify the deliverance of ecclesiastical offenders into the hands of secular authorities for punishment. It is still advocated by many Protestant commentators, among whom are Meyer, Alford, Barnes, Hodge. The latter thus sums up the reasons in its support: 1. “It is clearly revealed in Scripture that bodily evils are often inflicted by the agency of Satan. 2. The Apostles were invested with the power of miraculously inflicting such evils, Act_5:1-11; Act_13:9-11; 2Co_10:8; 2Co_13:10. 3. In 1Ti_1:20 the same formula occurs probably in the same sense. 4. There is no evidence that the Jews of that age ever expressed excommunication by this phrase, and therefore it would not, in all probability, be understood by Pauls readers in that sense. 5. Excommunication would not have the effect of destroying the flesh, in the sense in which that expression is used in the following clause. ”The consequence of this view is to exhibit the act under consideration as one done solely by Apostolic authority and power, and therefore as an exceptional case of discipline, which can afford no precedent for after times. The opposite view is the one maintained by Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen, Poole, and many others. They regard the formula, ‘to deliver a person to Satan,’ only as a more solemn mode of stating the fact of excommunication as expressed by our Lord in Mat_18:17,—one designed to exhibit more vividly the sad condition of him who has been cast out from the kingdom of God and so consigned into the hands of his great enemy, uncheered by the light and comforts of the Saviour. This seems the more rational interpretation, only that it does not take sufficient account of the malign agency ascribed to Satan in the Scriptures. For, 1, it accords precisely with the view of the Apostle, that outside the kingdom of God, Satan reigned as “the prince of the power of the air”—as the one that “had the power of death”—as the one who was the source of bodily inflictions, and had sent ‘a messenger to buffet him,’—even as he had “bound the woman who had the spirit of infirmity,” whom our Lord cured—and so was ever working in various ways to afflict mankind. And surely there is nothing in Scripture to warrant our believing that his agency in this respect has been restrained as yet. His power to tempt to sin implies a power also to inflict the evils which sin engenders. 2. The power of Satan, we are also taught, is subordinate to the power of God. He may be suffered to work an utter destruction, or be used as the unwilling instrument of a Divine discipline. Job and Paul are illustrations of the latter case. And we have every reason to believe, that Satan is still employed in God’s hands for this very work of discipline or destruction. Now if this be true, there is nothing miraculous or extraordinary in the case under review, even though we may suppose that physical evils are understood. The instances of Annanias and Sapphira, and of Elymas the sorcerer are not parallel with it. It is no objection that this formula of excommunication has never been found to have been used by the Jews, for it is in keeping with the whole tenor of Paul’s doctrine. Moreover, the results anticipated would be directly conducive to the end proposed, if, as was hoped for, the culprit was no reprobate, but one who promised recovery under this most humbling and chastening discipline].—The end to be subserved by this ‘deliverance unto Satan’ was,—for the destruction of the flesh—εἰςὅλεθροντῆςσαρκός.—That by this no mere moral effect is indicated, such as the mortification of the selfish and sensuous propensities of our nature, is evident both from the connection with what precedes, which points to an operation of Satan, and from the use of the word ὅλεθρος, which nowhere occurs in the above sense (for which rather the terms θανατοῦν., νεκροῦν, σταυροῦν, and the like, are used), and from the antithesis made here between “flesh” and “spirit.” Σάρξ here denotes the physical life in its depraved state, as an organism where sin is seated, and which serves sin. Now this, which had been used in so shameless a manner by the incestuous person as the instrument of sin, Paul wishes to have given over as a prey to Satan, that he might execute upon it a corresponding disorder, and so fulfil the Divine judgment. [And it must be added that there is no vice so fearfully avenged in that which is its seat and source, as this very one under consideration. Its legitimate consequences, so terrible as to carry in them the aspect of Satanic malignity, are, in fact, a ‘destruction of the flesh’].—But the ruin, thus to be wrought in the outer man, was not to be an utter and final one. There was in it a merciful design,—that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.—The idea is, that through the penalties inflicted upon his body the offender might be brought to repentance, so that although the former might perish, yet his spirit—the centre of his personality—being still receptive of Divine impressions, might be snatched from destruction, and be found at last within the circle of the ransomed at the day of final separation and decision. That the Apostle here contemplated something more than a bare possibility, is apparent from the whole tenor of this passage; and he might express such hope without presupposing any irresistible operation of Divine grace.11 [On the general subject of Satan—the nature and extent of his agency, and his relation to the kingdom of God, see the able articles in Kitto’s Enc. 2d ed.; Smith’s Bib. Diet., under the word “Satan,” and the one in Hertzog’s Re. Ency. Teufel; also an article by Moses Stuart in the Bib. Sac. for 1843, p. 117].

DOGMATICAL AND ETHICAL

[Excommunication: its right, occasions, grounds, form, intent and results. 1. The right to excommunicate is both a natural and a delegated right. The right of any community to exist, involves also the right to eject from itself all elements that are inconsistent with its character and integrity and well being. This belongs, therefore, to the Church. But above and beyond this, the injunction of Christ (Mat_18:17), and the example of the Apostles make it an imperative duty, for the preservation of the Church as a holy body, bearing witness for God and truth and righteousness. 2. The occasion which calls for the act must be some flagrant and habitual offence. Spiritual perfection is not to be looked for in the Church. The tares, which in outward appearance resemble the wheat, must be allowed to remain to the end. Hence many faults in doctrine and practice in the Church at Corinth, Paul was content with rebuking. But the incestuous person was to be cast out. In this forbearance of his towards the one, and severity towards the other, an example is set for all time. To distinguish when the one should end and the other should begin, belongs to the gift of wise government. 3. Its grounds]. The soul of a true evangelical discipline is Christ, His name and power—Christ dwelling in the hearts of believers by faith, and especially present with those whom he has made shepherds in it, with His living, powerful, all-enlightening, penetrating, sifting and dividing word, and hence with the energy of His Spirit operating therein. It is in the light of this word, that sin must be recognized as a reproach and a desecration of His name, and therefore as something which evokes a reaction against it from this Name—a reaction which is nothing else than a manifestation of the might of a holy, divine love.—[4. Its form]. The constraining power of this reaction must be felt and exhibited in the Church, which is Christ’s body, and especially in those who are the stewards of the Divine mysteries, and ambassadors speaking in His name, urging them as by an irresistible impulse, and arousing them to a strong determination to make it effective upon the offender. And the Church in assembling for this purpose when occasion calls, should come together solemnly, attended by the presence and power of the Lord. Thus and thus only, in a manner truly valid, and with unfailing results, can he, who has desecrated the name of Christ, and has proved unworthy of fellowship in His body, be cast out from the sphere of life in Christ, and from a participation in His protecting grace, and given over into the power of Satan to suffer the merited penalties of his sins. [5. The intent of this act is not punitive, but remedial, in consistency with the design of the whole Gospel dispensation, which was “to save and not to destroy;” and with the object of the power intrusted to the Apostle, and so to their successors, “which was for edification and not for destruction.” And this intent must be displayed in the manner in which the act is performed, and in the hopes and prayers with which it is accompanied. For though the act of excommunication is in one sense a cutting off from the means of grace, in another it may itself be made a means of grace through the blessing of God which may follow the offender in his exclusion and turn the very severity of his sufferings into a glorious benefit. And where this result is not hindered by the obduracy of the guilty party, and he has not sinned past forbearance, we may expect 6. as the result, repentance and restoration. Nor is this surprising]. In bringing about such issues Satan, the arch enemy of Christ, is employed as his servant, even while he, on his part, seeks only to gratify his own love of corrupting, plaguing and destroying men. Our sinful nature, the organ of sin and the seat of its impure impulses, is given over into his power to be wasted and destroyed. And while in doing, this, his intention is utterly to ruin, Christ aims at the ultimate deliverance of the spirit, which, having been enthralled by the flesh, is to be liberated through its weakening and destruction. He who inflicts the judgment, prescribes the limits beyond which the Evil One may not pass; yea, compels him to subserve the purposes of his holy love. This is one truth taught us in the Book of Job, although the author there is speaking not of punishment but of proof and trial. The results of such discipline will be brought to light on that day when all things shall be revealed. And they will be brought to light in such a way that Satan will be put to shame, while God will be glorified in the midst of His own, even among those who have deeply fallen, as One who is wonderful in counsel and glorious in execution.

[On this subject it will be profitable to consult Owen. Works, 16 p. 151–183. Edwards Serm. on Excom. Hooker Ec. Pol. Book vi].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[As before we had the picture of a Church imperfectly united—still divided by the prevalence of ambition and conflicting opinions, so here we have a picture of one imperfectly purified, still carrying in itself the corruptions and spots of an earlier depravity. And here we see: 1. How sin may convert the very grace of God into a warrant for a lasciviousness even grosser than any which may be practised without, 1Co_5:1.—How it shows more flagrant and abominable when seen in a body professing holiness, than elsewhere, 1Co_5:1-3. The melancholy aspect of a Church unconscious of its defilements, and flaunting in the conceit of its own perfection and beauty; and 4. in contrast with this, the proper attitude of humiliation and sorrow that it ought to assume, 1Co_5:2-5. The duty of observant and faithful ministers in the premises—to reprove remissness, and exhort the Church to self purgation, 1Co_5:3-6. The duty of the Church made alive to its disgrace—to cast out the evil it cannot cure, and consign the obdurate offender to the master he serves, a. with united action; b. in the name of the Lord; c. evincing a holy abhorence of sin; d. yet a love for the offender that shows itself in the desires and prayers for his recovery, 1Co_5:5].

Starke:—Since the scandal of crimes committed in the Church is greater than that of those committed in the world, we should avoid them the more carefully, lament over them the more deeply, and punish them the more scrupulously. The Church must tolerate the public rebuke of open offences, 1Co_5:1.—Christians should mourn over the sins of their brethren as if these were personal afflictions (Psa_119:136; Eze_9:4) 1Co_5:2.—It is possible for us to promote the welfare of a Church even when absent, by prayer and by power [?] by writing and giving counsel, 1Co_5:3.—Hed.: ‘How glorious the uses of excommunication!’ By it many an offender, who would otherwise continue in sin, and have part with the devil, is saved; by it the Church evinces its abhorence of evil, and shuns disgrace; by it she keeps from participating in others’ sins, which, through connivance, would involve a whole people in guilt and punishment; and finally, by it she prevents the spread of iniquity, 1Co_5:5.

Berlen. Bib.:—Merely formal assemblies profit nothing; the spirits must be present, and they must first be united by the power of Christ, 1Co_5:4.—A true church-censure flows from love. Its aim is the preservation of the spirit. It has ever been God’s method to destroy a part, and that the least part, rather than to lose the whole. So the Gospel still keeps the preponderance. And though the act wears a legal aspect, it is evangelical in intent, aiming to save what belongs to Christ.—We shall obtain salvation at the appearing of our Lord, provided we first awake from sleep, arise from the dead, and let Christ give us light, 1Co_5:5. The toleration of even small things, which originate from impure sources, endangers the whole obedience of faith, 1Co_5:6.

Rieger:—Conceit and self satisfaction, whether in individuals or communities, open the way for carnal license.—A person must have dug deep in poverty of spirit, if he takes not occasion from others’ trespasses to enhance his own reputation.—He who spares the rod hates his child. The omission of a lesser discipline only exposes the guilty one to greater judgments.

Heubner:—The abominableness of incest, from which even the heathen shrank with horror, must have a deep foundation in the nature of things, even in God, and not be sought for in the consequences alone, 1Co_5:1. Public offences, when tolerated, involve the whole Church in guilt, even the better portion, partly because all are members of one body; and partly, because their toleration is a token of a want in the Church of zeal and watchfulness and care, for its order and welfare, 1Co_5:2.—This power of censure i.e. of delivering over to Satan, which is now conceded to no one [?], is still invisibly exercised by Christ and His Apostles, over every Church, so that in their sight all unworthy persons are already excommunicated. Oh that we could ever bear in mind this scrutiny and judgment that is exercised over us from above!—The Christian Church is holy. It is a city set upon a hill, whose light shines far. Through offences and crimes its crown is trampled under foot. They are violations of the majesty of Christ.—The stringency of primitive Church discipline is no longer maintained. In congregations so mixed as ours, the consciousness of Christian communion has vanished, and public censure would be deemed a libel, and would fail of its end. Hence it only remains for the better members to withdraw their fellowship from every person who dishonors the Church, and refuses to reform, and so make manifest their displeasure at his conduct (Mat_18:17). This would be a voluntary discipline wholly within the power of Christians, of which even the guilty party cannot complain, 1Co_5:5.12

Neander:—It is well for the soul if it can be saved, even at the cost of bodily sufferings, 1Co_5:5.

[W. F. Besser:—It is not indeed granted the Church to know, or to determine what sort of evil Satan will inflict on one given over into His power. That he will not, however, slip the man on from one sin to another (Psa_69:28; Rom_1:24), but will, on the contrary, sensibly touch him with this or that external evil or misfortune, this the Church knows, because it recognizes Satan as the personal power of evil, and it purposes in Christ that the strokes of the destroyer shall smite the flesh of the condemned party, whether it be to the destruction of his bodily life, or to the loss of his earthly prosperity, in order that the spirit of the returning penitent (and so his body too at last) shall be saved in the day of the Lord].

[F. W. Robertson:—The Church excommunicates in a representative capacity. Man is the image of God, and man is the medium through which God’s absolution and God’s punishment are given and inflicted. Man is the mediator, because he represents God. His acts in this sense are, however, necessarily imperfect. There is but One in whom humanity was completely restored to the Divine Image, whose forgiveness and condemnation are exactly commensurate with God’s. Nevertheless, the Church here is the representation of that ideal man which Christ realized, and hence in a representative capacity condemns and forgives.—The indignation of society is properly representative of the indignation of God. God is angry at sin, and when our hearts are sound and healthy, and our view of moral evil not morbid and sentimental, we feel it too. And in expressing this we represent and make credible God’s wrath. When the offender hears the voice of condemnation and feels himself every where shunned, then conscience, which before had slumbered, begins to do its dreadful work, and the anger incurred becomes a type of coming doom. Thus is there lodged in Humanity a power to bind; and only so far as man is Christ-like can he exercise this power in an entirely true and perfect manner. (Abbreviated13)].

Footnotes:

[1]1Co_5:1.—The addition of ὀνομάζεται in the Rec. has the best authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.] against it, and is perhaps a supplement according to Eph_5:3.

[2]1Co_5:2.—It is doubtful whether we ought to read ποήσας with Griesbach, Meyer [Alford, Words.], or πράξας with Bückert, Tischendorf. Both are equally suited to the sense, and are about equally supported.

[3]1Co_5:2.—The Rec. εξαρθῇ is still less authorized than ὀνομάζεται 1Co_5:1, and no doubt originated out of 1Co_5:13.

[4]1Co_5:3.—The Rec. ὡς as, before ἀπών, absent, has indeed the oldest MSS. [A. B. C. D.1 Cod. Sin.] against it, and hence is rejected by Lachmann, Meyer [Alf. Words.]. But there are also many and good authorities in its favor. (D.2 F. L. Syr. and many of the Greek Fathers]. And it might as easily have been omitted for the sake of avoiding the repetition (παρών), or, as not suited to ἀπών, as admarginated, and then afterwards inserted according to the analogy of ὡς παρών. We retain it with Tischendorf. [We, on the contrary, omit it as badly supported and wholly needless, and wait for Tischendorf's last Ed. See comments below.]

[5]1Co_5:4.—The χριστοῦ of the Rec. was probably added later, because of the solemnity of the title. [it is found in D3. F. L. Cod. Sin. omitted in A. B. D1.]

[6]1Co_5:5.—This reading (Rec). is the most probable. Both the omission of ̓Ιησον͂ (Tisch.) as well as the addition ἡμῶν after κνρίον and of χριστοῦ after ̓Ιησοῦ are not sufficiently accredited.

[7][It is not credible that the Corinthian congregation, would have endured that one of their body should live with a harlot, especially his mother-in-law. But because this illicit connection had been palliated by the name of matrimony, therefore they might connive at it, especially if there were any who were the man’s zealous friends, and endeavored to soften the baseness of the thing.” Crellius. And this is the view of Meyer, whose arguments Kling does not seem to have thought it worth while to refute, and which undoubtedly ought to be admitted].

[8]The feeling of absolute control in the matter, which finds expression in 1Co_5:3, the Apostle softens first by the use of ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus,’ and then by associating with himself, in the republican spirit of primitive Christianity, the whole Church, where he presides in spirit.”—de Wette.]

[9]The Apostle translates himself in spirit to the Church in Corinth, and expresses his decision as if in midst of them.”—Berger.]

[10]Meyer, do Wette and Alford agree in taking the words, “with the power of our Lord Jesus,” not as a third element in the proposed assembly, nor yet as something resident in the whole Church, but as belonging exclusively to Paul, and so connect it directly to “my spirit.” But this seems arbitrary. If the act of ‘delivering over’ was to be the act of the whole Church and not one of independent apostolic authority, we must suppose that it, too, was fully empowered for the purpose by the Lord who had promised to be in it, when assembled in His name, to the end of time, giving force to its decisions. The grammatical question here will be apt to be determined very much in accordance with the preconceived theories of church government entertained by the interpreter. Hodge (e.g.) regards the Church as convened not for the purpose of voting and acting in the premises, but “as mere spectators,” to impart “solemnity to the judicial proceeding.” So he takes the words in question as connected directly either with “my spirit,” or with ‘to deliver’—the sense in either case being substantially the same. Wordsworth goes still farther, and regards the excommunication as not only “promulgated in the presence of the Church,” but also as having “been done without taking council with them,” and “probably against their inclination.” And so the Rheims version:—“Though the act was done in the face of the Church, yet the judgment and authority of giving sentence was in himself and not in the whole multitude, as the Protestant and popular sectaries affirm.” Owen, on the other hand, analyses the matter thus:—1. The supreme efficient cause of the excision is the power and authority of Jesus Christ. 2. The declarative cause of the equity of this sentence, the spirit of tho Apostle. 3. The instrumental, ministerial cause, the Church. They were to “do it in the name of the Lord,” and thereby “purge out the old leaven;” whence the punishment is said in 2Co_2:6 to be “inflicted by many.” (See a full discussion of this in Owen’s Works, vol. 16 p. 160). And Neander forcibly observes: “The Epistles of Paul, which treat of various controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to whole churches, and he assumes that the decision belonged to the whole body. Had it been otherwise he would have addressed his instructions principally at least to the overseers. When a licentious member of the Church at Corinth was to be excommunicated the Apostlo considered it a measure that ought to proceed from the whole society, and placed himself therefore in spirit among them, to unite with tham in passing judgment.” Furthermore it might be asked, if the Church had no power to act in the premises, where was the ground for Paul to complain of their conduct, in not securing the expulsion of the guilty parties? Plainly his purpose here, in decreeing as he did, was to supplement their lack of duty; and we are not to construe his procedure as pro formâ, but as extraordinary, and based upon that plenitude of power which he had as an Apostle.]

[11]Kling’s refutation of Rückert’s charge of “hasty and indiscreet zeal” on the part of Paul, we venture to omit as unnecessary. No one in this country would think of entertaining it for a moment].

[12]These remarks apply only to churches united with the state; and they bring to view one great evil of the state-church system, and afford evidence of its utter inconsistency with the whole idea of Christianity, and of its incompatibility with the Gospel requirements].

[13]See his striking views on this subject more fully exhibited in his serm, on Absolution in the 3d Vol. of his series.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Corinthian Failures. Chapters 5-6.

CHAPTER 5

1. The Tolerated Case of Gross Immorality. (1Co 5:1-5).

2. The Call to Separation. (1Co 5:6-13).

The spiritual declension, the carnal spirit which prevailed among them, had brought forth fruit. One of their members had committed an act of the grossest immorality, which was an unspeakable outrage, such as was not even named in a licentious city like Corinth, where licentiousness of life was a broadly marked feature of society. It was a case of lawlessness and vileness, which was unknown among the heathen. And this case was tolerated in their midst. Instead of mourning over their sin they were puffed up and did not put away the evil doer from the assembly. If they lacked the personal instruction of the Apostle what to do in such a case, they should have turned to the Lord in sorrow of heart and asked Him for guidance. But they were indifferent. The Apostle now tells them what had to be done. He was among them in spirit, and exercises his apostolic authority in the name and power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

“If the enemy had succeeded in drawing aside by the flesh a member of Christ, so that he dishonors the Lord by walking after the flesh as men of the world do, he is put outside, and by the power of the Spirit, as then exercised in their midst by the Apostle, delivered up to the enemy, who is in spite of himself the servant of the purposes of God (as in the case of Job), in order that the flesh of the Christian (which, from his failure to reckon himself dead to sin, had brought him morally under the power of Satan) should be physically destroyed and broken down. Thus would he be set free from the illusions in which the flesh held him captive. His mind would learn how to discern the difference between good and evil, to know what sin is. The judgment of God would be realized within him, and would not be executed upon him at that day when it would be definitely for the condemnation of those who should undergo it. This was a great blessing! although its form was terrible. Marvelous example of the government of God, which uses the adversary’s enmity against the saints as an instrument for their spiritual blessing! We have such a case fully set before us in the history of Job. Only we have here, in addition, the proof that in its normal state, apostolic power being there, the assembly exercised this judgment itself, having discernment by the Spirit and the authority of Christ to do it. Moreover, whatever may be the spiritual capacity of the assembly to wield this sword of the Lord (for this is power), her positive and ordinary duty is stated at the end of the chapter.” (Synopsis of the Bible)

The second epistle will show us how this discipline was greatly blessed to this wicked person upon whom this sentence was pronounced and who was put out of fellowship with God’s people. But not only was there individual evil, but the sin affected the whole Corinthian assembly. As Achan’s sin was a curse to Israel (Jos 7:1-26), so the leaven of this wickedness was corrupting the whole church. Leaven is seen here once more as a type of evil. A little leaven, a little evil allowed, leavens the whole lump both individually and collectively. The Apostle demands that no evil in any form, whether moral or doctrinal, is to be tolerated among those who are Christ’s. Christ is our passover Lamb sacrificed for us. In Him all believers are constituted holy. With the passover there was inseparably linked the feast of unleavened bread, showing that redemption is holiness. As the Jew had to put away all leaven in eating the passover, so the Christian must purge out all leaven and be in an unleavened condition, in sincerity and in truth before God. Even the smallest bit of leaven, the least deviation from the truth of God, in holding some unscriptural doctrine, or any other evil, will, if not purged, ultimately leaven the whole lump. Christendom today is a solemn witness to this truth. The whole professing church is leavened by the leaven of the Pharisees (Ritualism); the leaven of the Sadducees (Higher Criticism or infidelity); the Corinthian leaven (vain glory and worldliness) and the Galatian leaven (Legalism). Then follows the command, “therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Such discipline demanded by the Holy Spirit is almost unknown today in that which professes to be the church of God. It has been said that it is uncharitable and harsh to deal in this way with those who are evil in doctrine or practice. It is not that, but rather a gracious measure, to humble such an one and bring him back to the place of blessing.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 1. (1Co 5:1-13.)

Unity to be maintained in righteousness.

We have now the question of how the unity which plainly exists in the Church as the body of Christ is to be maintained in righteousness. Righteousness is, in fact, before all things necessary to be maintained. The apostle puts it first for us where he tells us that grace, if it reigns, yet itself reigns through righteousness, not setting it aside; and that we are to follow, first of all, righteousness, then "faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." Righteousness is rooted, of necessity, in the very nature of God Himself, and therefore the moment it is a question of going on with what is unrighteous, we have not to think of ecclesiastical rules or of the very relationships which God has established amongst us, so far as they interfere, or may be thought to interfere with the working out of this. God must always have maintained that which suits Himself; and thus, while there are many things besides to be considered in respect to our communion with other Christians, the very fist point for us is righteousness.

1. A most solemn thing is shown us in the first place here, and that is, that if Christians fall into sin, we need not be surprised if they fall lower than the men of the world themselves. At Corinth there was already among them that which could not be found even among the Gentiles; the lawlessness was complete, unique. It was the violation of nature, and of what was God’s principle as to the creation itself apart from Christianity, and yet such was the state at Corinth that they were not only going on with it, but there was no sign of mourning over it at all. "Ye are puffed up," he says, "and have not rather mourned, in order that he that hath done this deed might be taken out of your midst." They might surely, if they did not know bow to deal with it, have cried to God in their sorrow, and would have been heard by Him. We have always this resource, but;hey were puffed up instead. How soon can the Christian forget, perhaps in the very thought of that grace which breaks the dominion of sin, the very principles which nature itself should teach him!

2. But here we come to a remarkable sample of God’s power over the evil, nay of His use of it to fulfil His own holy purposes. The man is to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. He is put into the hands of the adversary, who can now show himself plainly as the adversary that he always is. He can serve himself no longer by the sin of one who has been expelled from the Christian assembly. He has, therefore, nothing that he can do except to manifest his enmity against one who has borne the name of Christ, perhaps with the thought of driving him to despair by that which falls upon him, or, as in Job’s case (one, of course, so different in himself from the person before us now), urge him into railing against God Himself. God uses him, on the other hand, that in the destruction of the flesh the spirit may yet be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This is a principle which we find afterwards noted in His dealings with the Corinthians themselves, of whom, for the dishonor of the Lord’s table, there were many who were weak and sickly, and many who slept. The apostle adds: "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged; but when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." God must manifest Himself against the sin; and if it is not to be eternally, it must be now in time; except indeed self-judgment come in, as he tells us here: "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

A solemn principle this is of divine government, and as we see, it is grounded in the divine nature. If His people will not maintain righteousness, He must maintain His own righteousness as to them, while at the same time He cannot, of course, and will not, forget the grace that He is showing in Christ. The apostle tells them, therefore, that he has already pronounced, as it were, with regard to the man in question, and bids them carry out his decision, which their own consciences must need respond to, in the name of Christ their Lord, as solemnly gathered together and himself in spirit, if not in body, with them, to deliver this man to Satan. This was apostolic power, no doubt. He speaks elsewhere of his delivering the promulgators of false doctrine to Satan without any question of the assembly at all; but although with us there may lack this element of authority, God will not fail to maintain the decisions of His people when according to truth and His own nature. Thus, while the Church may perhaps not be able formally to deliver to Satan, yet the principle remains untouched in integrity for us.

3. The apostle turns now to consider the influence of this evil, permitted among them, upon the whole assembly, and the necessity of their complete separation from it, not only for the Lord’s sake and for the person’s sake who had sinned, but for their own sake also. He speaks of that which characterizes the Christian’s life as it were a feast upon a sacrifice. "Christ our Passover," he says, "has been sacrificed for us." We are living, so to speak, upon the fruits of that sacrifice. If God has bidden us to His feast, what must be the character of such a feast? The Old Testament has already shown us in its types that leaven was to be purged away before ever men ventured to sit down to partake of the passover.

(1) How sorrowful was their glorying then! Had they not received instruction from these types of the Old Testament, with which, as we see, they were certainly familiar, and familiar too in their application to Christianity? Did they not know that a little leaven leavened the whole lump? Little it might be in the speech of men. When the apostle speaks thus, it is evident that every atom of leaven must be purged out in order to satisfy die mind of God. Leaven is not simply evil, but evil allowed; the ferment, as the thought is, of wills that are not subject to God. If such leaven be permitted in a man’s own life and ways, it will of necessity characterize him as a whole. He cannot be subject to God up to a certain limit. The moment we urge a limit to obedience, we urge what is in fact disobedience, and there is no such thing with God as the allowance of such a line as this. Unleavened bread, as the apostle says here, is that of sincerity and truth. There must be whole-hearted devotedness. If we refuse obedience anywhere, we are disobedient. If we refuse it in one thing, this will necessarily by degrees influence all other things. So it is individually, and so it is collectively. There must be hearts that can truly desire God to search them and see whether there be any way of wickedness in them; or else there is not, as is plain, sincerity and truth. The lump with leaven in it is a leavened lump, except it be as we find it in the meat-offering of the first-fruits. In this case the action of the fire has destroyed the leaven as leaven. It is there in a sense, but not there. There is no activity of it permitted or allowed. The fire necessarily stops that completely; and it cannot be too earnestly insisted upon that such a spirit of whole-hearted devotedness of which we are speaking is necessary to the true judgment of any single thing. Otherwise, first of all, the eye by which we see is obscured, or, as the Lord would say, made evil, and: "If thine eye be evil, the whole body will be full of darkness." We cannot shut out God’s light without, as far as depends upon us, shutting it out altogether. If we shut our eyes, we shut ourselves into darkness; nay, the Lord has said: "If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

They were, therefore, to purge out the old leaven that they might be a new lump, even as in God’s sight in Christ they were in fact unleavened. Yet they would by this be a new lump. Thus they were not that, in the condition in which they stood. What they were before God was one thing. Their lives and ways did not answer to it. "Wherefore," he says, "let us celebrate the feast not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

(2) Another principle is now shown us, that in case of sin amongst the people of the Lord there is to be a more complete separation from those going on with it than there would be from the world itself, -in which, of course, this sin was everywhere. This ought not to be strange as a principle to us, for it is plain that it is the profession of the name of Christ along with it that gives the evil in this case a character all its own. Thus, he had written to theta that they were not to mingle with men of this class; and yet he is not speaking of the world, whatever their various characters of sin might be, for in fact if they were to attempt this, the world was such that they would. have to go out of it altogether. There would be no possibility, even, of discerning the character of those with whom they were being brought in contact. The same difficulty of application is found today with the world, which is so largely a professing world. The principle remains untouched, but the application is more difficult. We cannot treat the professing mass according to their profession, it is so merely that; but still, when there is a manifest dishonor being done to the Lord by great opposition between profession and practice, we must, as far as lies in us, clear the Lord’s name from this dishonor. In the closer circle of actual communion, of course the apostle’s words have their full force. The wicked one is to be put away, not, merely from the table, but from among ourselves and this is to extend to the very matter of eating and drinking in such a case. We are not to mingle with them in any way. The more truly the heart goes after them, as it surely must, -God’s own heart goes after them -the more closely will the divine rule be observed, which is that upon which alone there can be His blessing. As for discipline, it is always with the thought finally of the restoration of the offender. We see in what is before us here how thoroughly this was the case even after the extreme point had been reached and he had been put away from fellowship. God used this putting away to break him down, and thus for his restoration. It would not be to be with God at all to leave out of our thoughts or hearts those whom we may have had to put away from our fellowship. God’s heart never gives up His people, and our hearts should never do so; and this will give the spirit of love in all our dealings with them, while it will not make the testimony we give against their ways less decisive, but much more.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:1-8 Paul confronts sexual immorality in the church and instructs the Christians to expel a shameless offender from their fellowship.

5:1 sexual immorality: A man was having sex with his stepmother. Such behavior even pagans didn’t do: It violated both the law of Moses (see Lev 18:7-8) and Roman law (Gaius, Institutes 1.63).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 5:1. Ὅλως, absolutely [Engl. Vers., commonly]) Paul has nowhere else used this particle, but it is found thrice in this epistle (here, and in 1Co 6:7, and 1Co 15:29), as well fitted to express his thoughts, and in these and in all other places, the particle, ὅλως, omnino, is either put in a negative sentence, or it by implication contradicts a negative sentence: So Chrys. Homil. 5, c. Anom., Nevertheless, although man differs little from an angel, ἐπειδὴ ὍΛΩΣ ἐστί τι μεσον, since nevertheless there is some difference between them, we do not accurately know, what angels are: so in this passage, no fornication, ὅλως, at all should be reported among you; nevertheless it is, ὅλως, absolutely reported. The same principle applies to the particle, τὴν ἀρχὴν, absolutely.—ἐν ὑμῖν, concerning you [Engl. Vers. among]) in your name [case].—πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία, fornication and such fornication) An important repetition; by which the Corinthians might be more affected.—οὐδὲ, not even) It was a crime not named even among the Gentiles, with the exception of a few monsters; ὥστε is the Protherapeia[37] of the following clause. The apostle shows, that such infamous conduct was held in abhorrence even by the Gentiles.—ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ, wife) She was no doubt a heathen; therefore he does not direct his rebuke against her, 1Co 5:12-13. The father, we may suppose, was dead.—ἔχειν, should have) by a single act, or by habitual intercourse, 1Co 5:2-3.

[37] See App. Anticipatory mitigation of what follows.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_5:1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note of transition, but after the closing words of 1Co_4:21 with all the more telling force, the discourse falls with severity at once upon another deep-seated evil in the church.

ὅλως] means simply in general, in universum, as in 1Co_6:7, 1Co_15:29, Mat_5:34, and in Greek writers; it belongs to ἀκούεται, so that to the general expression ὅλως ἀκούεται πορν. there corresponds the particular καὶ τοιαύτη πορν., sc[748] ἀκούεται. The latter, however, is something worse than the former, hence the ΚΑΊ is intensive (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147): One hears generally (speaking broadly) of fornication among you, and even of such fornication one hears among you, as is not found among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate that it is no dubius rumor, sed res manifesta; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, al[749]) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or omnino (Vulgate), but neither ubique nor certainly. Rückert thinks that it assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be supplied after 1Co_4:21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity; and that Paul would more fittingly have written γοῦν. This is arbitrary, and even in point of logic doubly incorrect, because ὍΛΩς here introduces the report of a quite special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization; and because, if the restrictive γοῦν would have been better in this passage, Paul in using the generalizing ὅλως must have expressed himself illogically.

ἐν ὑμῖν] not: as occurring among you (comp Ewald), for it is a defining statement which belongs to ἈΚΟΎΕΤΑΙ; but: one hears talk among you of fornication, one comes to hear of it in your community. Paul expresses the state of things as it was perhaps made known to him by Chloes people (1Co_1:11) or others who came from Corinth, and spoke to him in some such way as this: In the Corinthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc.; such things as these one is forced to hear of there!

ἐν τοῖς ἔθν.] ἈΕῚ ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ἘΘΝΙΚῶΝ ὈΝΕΙΔΊΖΕΙ ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΟῖς, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among the Jews: Lev_18:8; Deu_22:30; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301; Michaelis, Mos. R. II. p. 206; Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 766 f. The instances of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Obss. I. p. 184) were exceptions contrary to law (see Elsner, p. 90; Wetstein and Pott in loc[751]), and abhorred (Wetstein, l.c[752]).

γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρός] i.e. אֵשֶׁת אָב, stepmother, Lev_18:8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was, no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Lev_18:8 that Paul chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation ΜΗΤΡΥΙΆ), ὭΣΤΕ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΧΑΛΕΠΏΤΕΡΟΝ ΠΛῆΞΑΙ, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual arrangement of the words, too, ΓΥΝΑῖΚΆ ΤΙΝΑ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς, puts an emphasis of ignominy upon ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ.

ἜΧΕΙΝ] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Rückert, Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage (Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2Co_7:12, Maier) or in concubinage (Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact that ἜΧΩ is never used in the N. T. in such sense as that of the well-known ἜΧΩ ΛΑΐΔΑ (Diog. Laert. ii. 75; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or quis heri Chrysidem habuit? (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage[753] Mat_14:4; Mat_22:28; Mar_6:18; 1Co_7:2; 1Co_7:29. Comp 1Ma_11:9; Hom. Od. iv. 569; Herod. iii. 31; Thuc. ii. 29. 1; Xen. Cyr. i. 5. 4; Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef.; Maetzn. a[755] Lycurg. p. 121); but further, and more especially, the use of the past tenses ποιήσας, 1Co_5:2, and κατεργασάμενον, 1Co_5:3, to designate the matter, which convey not the conception of illicit intercourse, but that of an incestuous marriage having actually taken place. Paul ranks this case under the head of πορνεία (see on Mat_5:32); because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further intends to designate definitely by κ. τοιαύτη πορν. κ.τ.λ[756] the particular occurrence which is included under this general category. Mat_5:32; Mat_19:9, should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that πορνεία proves the case not to have been one of adultery. The objection, again, that Paul does not insist upon a divorce, is of no weight; for he does insist upon excommunication, and, after that had taken place, the criminal marriageif the offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of his own accordwould no longer concern the Christians (see 1Co_5:12-13). Another objection: How could the magistrates have tolerated such a marriage? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and morally corrupt city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, especially on the point of the ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ (see Introd. § 1); and partly by remembering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew orwhich is more likelya heathen, having turned Christian, might put forward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jebhamoth, f. 982; Michaelis, Einl. § 178, p. 1221; Lübkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this chapter.

As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian, else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Her former husband was still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him), and was probably a Christian; 2Co_7:12.

[748] c. scilicet.

[749] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[751] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[752] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[753] Even in Joh_4:18, where, however, the word must be kept in the peculiar significant mode of expression which belongs to the passage, as applied to an irregular, not real or legal marriage.

[755] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[756] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1Co_5:1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in the church.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 5:1-8 . § 15. THE CASE OF INCEST. About the party-strifes at Cor [801] P. has been informed by the members of a particular family (1Co 1:11 ); the monstrous case of incest, to which he turns abruptly and without any preface ( cf. 1Co 1:10 ), is notorious.

[801] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

1Co 5:1 . Ὅλως ἀκούεται κ . τ . λ .: “There is actually fornication heard of amongst you!” No wonder that the father of the Church is compelled to show the “rod” (1Co 4:21 ). Not ἀκούω , as in 1Co 11:18 , but the impersonal ἀκούεται ( cf. ἠκούσθη , Mar 2:1 ), indicating common report in the Church ( ἐν ὑμῖν ), and ( ὅλως : see parls.) undoubted fact . Πορνεία signifies any immoral sexual relation, whether including (as in Mat 5:32 ) or distinguished from (Mat 15:19 ) μοιχεία .

The sin is branded as of unparalleled blackness by the description, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις κ . τ . λ .: “Yes, and a fornication of such sort” the καί climactic “as (there is) not even among the Gentiles!” While mere πορνεία was excused not to say approved in heathen society, even by strict moralists, such foulness was abominated. Of this crime the loose Catullus says (76. 4): “Nam nihil est quidquam sceleris quo prodeat ultra”; and Cicero, pro Cluent. , 6, 15: “scelus incredibile, et prseter hanc unam in omni vita inauditum”; Euripides’ Hippolytus speaks for Gr [802] sentiment. Greek and Roman law both stamped it with infamy; for Jewish law, see Lev 18:7 f., Deu 22:30 also Gen 49:4 . ἥτις , of quality (as in 1Co 3:17 ), in place of the regular correlative οἵα (1Co 15:48 ). Neither ὀνομάζεται (T.R.) nor ἀκούεται is understood in the ellipsis, simply ἐστίν “such as does not exist”; the exceptional heathen instances are such as to prove the rule. The actual sin is finally stated: ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα κ . τ . λ ., “as that one ( or a certain one) should have a wife of his father”. ἥτις defines the quality, ὥστε (with inf [803] ) the content and extent of the πορνεία . γυν . τοῦ πατρός (instead of μητρυίαν ) is the term of Lev 18:8 . ἔχειν indicates a continued association, whether in the way of formal marriage or not; nor does ἔργον (1Co 5:2 ), nor κατεργασάμενον (1Co 5:3 ), make clear this latter point. That “the father” was living is not proved by the ἀδικηθεὶς of 2Co 7:12 ; P. can hardly have referred to this foul immorality in the language of 2Co 2:5-11 ; 2Co 7:8-12 ; the “grief” and “wrong” of those passages are probably quite diff [804] The woman was not a Christian, for Paul passes no sentence upon her; see 1Co 5:13 .

[802] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[803] infinitive mood.

[804] difference, different, differently.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:1-13.] Concerning a gross case of incest which had arisen, and was harboured, among them (vv. 1-8): and qualification of a former command which he had given them respecting association with gross sinners (9-13). The subject of this chapter is bound on to the foregoing by the question of ch. 4:21: and it furnishes an instance of those things which required his apostolic discipline.

1.] ὅλως, actually, ‘omnino,’ see reff.: in negative sentences, ‘at all.’

ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμ. πορνεία] another way of saying ἀκούουσί τινες ἐν ὑμ. πόρνοι,—the character of πόρνος is borne (by some) among you,—fornication is borne as a character among you. From missing this sense of ἀκούομαι, Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to ὅλως, rendering it ‘commonly,’ to suit ἀκούεται, ‘is reported,’—(2) as to ἐν ὑμῖν, joining it with πορνεία, whereas it belongs to ἀκούεται,—(3) as to ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τ. ἔθν., see below.

καὶ τοιαύτ. π.] And fornication of such a sort (the καί rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of οὐ μόνον …‚ ἀλλὰ … before it; so Aristoph. Ran. 116, ὦ σχέτλιε, τολμήσεις γὰρ ἰέναι καὶ σύ γε; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a character) even among the heathen. The ὀνομάξεται of the rec. is a clumsy gloss, probably from Eph 5:3: the meaning being, that not even among the heathen does any one ἀκούει πόρνος in this sense, that it was a crime that they would not tolerate as a matter of public notoriety. So that one among yon has (as wife most probably, not merely as concubine: the word ἔχω in such cases universally in the N. T. signifying to possess in marriage: and Meyer remarks that ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο ποιήσας (ver. 2), and τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον (ver. 3) seem to point to a consummation of marriage, not to mere concubinage) his father’s wife (i.e. his step-mother, see Lev 18:8; οὐκ εἶπε μητρυιὰν ἀλλὰ γυναῖκα πατρός, ὥστε πολλῷ χαλεπώτερον πλῆξαι, Chrys. Hom. xv. p. 125).

The Commentators generally refer to Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, “Nubit genero socrus, nullis auspicibus, nullis auctoribus, funestis ominibus omnium omnibus. O mulieris scelus incredibile, et præter hanc unam, in omni vita inauditum,” &c.

It may seem astonishing that the authorities in the Corinthian church should have allowed such a case to escape them, or if known, should have tolerated it. Perhaps the universal laxity of morals at Corinth may have weakened the severity even of the Christian elders: perhaps, as has often been suggested, the offender, if a Jewish convert, might defend his conduct by the Rabbinical maxim that in the case of a proselyte, the forbidden degrees were annulled, a new birth having been undergone by him (see Maimon. in Wetst.). This latter however is rendered improbable by the fact that the Apostle says nothing of the woman, which he would have done had she been a Christian:—and that Jewish maxim was taxed with the condition, that a proselyte might marry any of his or her former relatives, ‘modo ad Judaicam religionem transierint.’ The father was living, and is described in 2Co 7:12, as ὁ ἀδικηθείς;—and from the Apostle saying there that he did not write on his account, he was probably a Christian.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:1-13. ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE

There is a case of gross immorality among you, and your attitude towards it is distressing. Have no fellowship with such offenders.

1 It is actually notorious among you that there is a case of unchastity of a revolting character, a character so revolting as not to occur even among the heathen, that a man should have his step-mother as his concubine. 2 And you, with this monstrous crime among you, have gone on in your inflated self-complacency, when you ought rather to have been overwhelmed with grief, that it should have become necessary that the person who was guilty of this dreadful offence should be removed from your midst. 3 As for my view of it, there must be no uncertainty. Although absent in body yet present in spirit, I have already pronounced the sentence, which I should have pronounced had I been present, on the man who has perpetrated this enormity. 4 In the Name of our Lord Jesus, when you are all assembled in solemn congregation and my spirit is with you armed with the effectual power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have given sentence that such an offender is to be handed over to Satan for the destruction by suffering of the flesh in which he has sinned, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. 6 Your glorying is not at all to your credit. Do you really not know that a very little leaven affects the whole lump of dough? 7 You must entirely cleanse away the old leaven, if you are to be (as, of course, as Christians you are) as free from leaven as a new lump of dough. You are bound to make this new start for many reasons; and above all, because Christ, our spotless Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed, and therefore everything which corrupts must be put away. 8 Consequently we should keep our feast, not with leaven from our old lives, nor yet with leaven of vice and wickedness, but with bread free from all leaven, the bread of unsullied innocence and truth.

9 I said to you in my letter that you were not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I did not exactly mean that you were to shun all the fornicators of the non-Christian world, any more than all the cheats, or extortioners, or idolaters. That would mean that you would have to go out of the world altogether. 11 What I meant was, that you were not to keep company with any one who bears the sacred name of Christian and yet is given to fornication, or cheating, or idolatry, or abusive language, or hard drinking, or extortion;—with such a man you must not even share a meal. 12 Of course I did not refer to those who are not Christians; for what right have I to sit in judgment on them? I confine my judgments to those who are in the Church. 13 Do not you do the same? Those who are outside it we leave to God’s judgment. Only one practical conclusion is possible. Remove the wicked person from among you.

The Apostle now comes to the second count of his indictment. It is not merely that a particularly flagrant case of immorality has occurred. That this should happen at all is bad enough. But what makes it far worse is the way in which it is taken by the community. Their morbid and frivolous self-conceit is untroubled. They have shown no sign of proper feeling: still less have they dealt with the case, as they ought to have done, by prompt expulsion (vv. 1-5). In view of the infectiousness of such evil, they ought to eliminate it, as leaven from a Jewish house at the Passover (6, 7); for the life of the Christian community is a spiritual Passover (8). His previous warning has been misunderstood. It means that for grave and scandalous sins a Christian must be made to suffer by isolation; and this, in the case in question, must be drastically enforced (9-13).

The passage is linked to the section dealing with the σχίσματα by the spiritual disorder (τὸ φυσιωθῆναι) which, according to St Paul’s diagnosis, lies at the root of both evils. Inordinate attention to external differences, and indifference to vital questions of morality, are both of them the outcome of selfsatisfied frivolity. But the passage is more obviously linked with ch. 6., and especially with the subject of πορνεία which occupies its last portion (6:12-20).

This indictment, following upon 4:21 without any connecting particle, bursts upon the readers like a thunder-clap.

1. Ὅλως. Not ‘commonly’ (AV.), but ‘actually’ (RV.). The word means ‘altogether,’ ‘most assuredly,’ ‘incontrovertibly’; or, with a negative, ‘at all.’ Such a thing ought not to be heard of at all (exactly as in 6:7; cf. 15:29), and it is matter of common talk: ὅλως nulla debebat in vobis audiri scortatio; at auditur ὅλως (Beng.).

ἀκούεται ἐν ὕμῖν. The ἐν ὑμῖν grammatically localizes the report, but in effect it localizes the offence: it was among them that the rumour was circulating, because in their midst the sin was found: ‘unchastity is reported [as existing] among you.’ The report may have reached the Apostle through the same channel as that which brought information about the factions (1:11), or through Stephanas (16:17). The weight of the Apostle’s censure falls, not upon the talk about the crime within the community, but upon its occurrence, and the failure to deal with it.

πορνεία. Illicit sexual intercourse in general. In Rev 19:2, as in class. Grk., it means prostitution: in Mat 5:32, Mat 19:9 it is equivalent to μοιχεία, from which it is distinguished Mat 15:19 and Mar 7:21: cf. Hos 3:3; Ecclus. 23:23, where we have ἐν πορνείᾳ ἐμοιχεύθη.

καὶ τοιαύτη. ‘And of so monstrous a character as does not exist even among the heathen.’ The οὐδέ intensifies ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, and ἀκούεται is not to be understood: ‘is not so much as named among the Gentiles’ (AV.) is wrong, based on a wrong reading. Cf. novum crimen et ante hunc diem inauditum (Cic. Pro Lig. i. 1); and scelus incredibile et praeter hanc unam in hac vita inauditum (In Cluent. 6), of Sassia’s marriage with her son-in-law, Melinus.*

ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. The placing of τινα betwen γυναῖκα and πατρός throws emphasis on to these two words (Blass, Gr. § 80, 2). Chrysostom suggests that St Paul uses γυναῖκα του πατρός rather than μητρυιάν in order to emphasize the enormity. More probably, he chooses the language of Lev 18:8. The Talmud prescribes stoning for this crime. Cf. Amo 2:7; Lev 18:8. The woman was clearly not the mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of πορνεία rather than μοιχεία does not prove this) she was not, at the time, the wife of the offender’s father. She may have been divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband may have been dead. There is little doubt that 2Co 7:12 refers to a different matter, and that ὁ ἀδικηθείς there is not the offender’s father, but Timothy or the Apostle himself. As St Paul here censures the male offender only, the woman was probably a heathen, upon whom he pronounces no judgment (v. 12). The ἔχειν implies a permanent union of some kind, but perhaps not a formal marriage: cf. Joh 4:18. Origen speaks of it as a marriage (γάμος), and ἔχω is used of marriage in 7:2; Mat 14:4, etc. In the lowest classes of Roman society the legal line between marriage and concubinage was not sharply defined.

After ἔθνεσιν, א 3 L P, Syrr. AV. add ὀνομάζεται: א* A B C D E F G 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter V

The case of the incestuous member of the church, 1Co_5:1-5. Exhortation to purity, and to fidelity in discipline, 1Co_5:6-13.

Reproof for Retaining an Unworthy Member in the Church 1Co_5:1-13

The second evil in the church of Corinth, to which Paul directs his attention, is allowing a man guilty of incest to remain in its communion. He says it was generally reported that fornication was tolerated among them, and even such fornication as was not heard of among the heathen, 1Co_5:1. He reproves them for being inflated, instead of being humbled and penitent, and excommunicating the offender, 1Co_5:2. As they had neglected their duty, he determined, in the name of Christ, and as spiritually present in their assembly, to deliver the man guilty of incest to Satan, 1Co_5:3-5. He exhorts to purity, in language borrowed from the Mosaic law respecting the Passover. As during the feast of the Passover all leaven was to be removed from the habitations of the Hebrews, so the Christians life should be a perpetual paschal feast, all malice and hypocrisy being banished from the hearts and from the assemblies of believers, 1Co_5:6-8. He corrects or guards against a misapprehension of his command not to associate with the immoral. He shows that the command had reference to church communion, and not to social intercourse, and therefore was limited in its application to members of the church. Those out of the church, it was neither his nor their prerogative to judge. They must be left to the judgment of God, 1Co_5:9-13.

1Co_5:1

It is reported commonly (that there is) fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his fathers wife.

Having dismissed the subject of the divisions in the church of Corinth, he takes up the case of the incestuous member of that church. It is reported commonly (ὅλως ἀκούεται). This may mean what our translation expresses, viz., it was a matter of notoriety that fornication existed among them. Ὅλως may have the force of omnino, nothing is heard of among you except, etc. Or it may mean, In general, fornication is heard of among you. That is, it was a common thing that fornication was heard of; implying that the offense, in different forms, more or less prevailed. This is the less surprising, considering how little sins of that class were condemned among the heathen and how notorious Corinth was for its licentiousness. To change the moral sentiments of a community is a difficult and gradual work. The New Testament furnishes sad evidence, that Jewish and Gentile converts brought into the church many of the errors of their former belief and practice. The word fornication (πορνεία) is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh commandment. Here a particular case is distinguished as peculiarly atrocious. The offense was that a man had married his step-mother. His fathers wife is a Scriptural periphrase for step-mother, Lev_18:8. That it was a case of marriage is to be inferred from the uniform use of the phrase to have a woman in the New Testament, which always means to marry. Mat_14:4; Mat_22:28; 1Co_7:2, 1Co_7:29. Besides, although the connection continued, the offense is spoken of as past, 1Co_7:2, 1Co_7:3. Such a marriage Paul says was unheard of among the Gentiles, that is, it was regarded by them with abhorrence. Cicero, pro Cluent. 5, 6, speaks of such a connection as an incredible crime, and as, with one exception, unheard of. It is probable from 2Co_7:12 that the father of the offender was still alive. The crime, however, was not adultery, but incest; for otherwise the apostle would not have spoken of it as an unheard of offense, and made the atrocity of it to arise out of the relation of the woman to the offenders father. We have here therefore a clear recognition of the perpetual obligation of the Levitical law concerning marriage. The Scriptures are a perfect rule of duty; and therefore, if they do not prohibit marriage between near relatives, such marriages are not sins in the sight of God. To deny, therefore, the permanency of the law recorded in Leviticus 18, is not only to go contrary to the authority of the apostle, but also to teach that there is for Christians no such crime as incest.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They are greatly to be reprehended which by suffering of wickedness, set forth the Church of God to be mocked and scorned as the infidels.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER V.

Account of the incestuous person, or of him who had married his

father's wife, 1.

The apostle reproves the Corinthians for their carelessness in

this matter, and orders them to excommunicate the transgressor,

2-5.

They are reprehended for their glorying, while such scandals

were among them, 6.

They must purge out the old leaven, that they may properly

celebrate the Christian passover, 7-9.

They must not associate with any who, professing the Christian

religion, were guilty of any scandalous vice, and must put away

from them every evil person, 10-13.

NOTES ON CHAP. V.

Verse 1. There is fornication among you] The word πορνεια, which we translate fornication in this place, must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity; for, that the Corinthians were notoriously guilty of every species of irregularity and debauch, we have already seen; and it is not likely that in speaking on this subject, in reference to a people so very notorious, he would refer to only one species of impurity, and that not the most flagitious.

That one should have his father's wife.] Commentators and critics have found great difficulties in this statement. One part of the case is sufficiently clear, that a man who professed Christianity had illegal connections with his father's wife; but the principal question is, was his father alive or dead? Most think that the father was alive, and imagine that to this the apostle refers, 2Co 7:12, where, speaking of the person who did the wrong, he introduces also him who had suffered the wrong; which must mean the father and the father then alive. After all that has been said on this subject, I think it most natural to conclude that the person in question had married the wife of his deceased father, not his own mother, but stepmother, then a widow.

This was a crime which the text says was not so much as named among the Gentiles; the apostle must only mean that it was not accredited by them, for it certainly did often occur: but by their best writers who notice it, it was branded as superlatively infamous. Cicero styles it, scelus incredibile et inauditum, an incredible and unheard of wickedness; but it was heard of and practised; and there are several stories of this kind in heathen authors, but they reprobate not commend it. The word ονομαζεται, named, is wanting in almost every MS. and version of importance, and certainly makes no part of the text. The words should be read, and such fornication as is not amongst the Gentiles, i.e., not allowed. Some think that this woman might have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion from heathenism; and the rabbins taught that proselytism annulled all former relationship, and that a woman was at liberty in such a case to depart from an unbelieving husband, and to marry even with a believing son, i.e., of her husband by some former wife.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. It is generally reported that there is among you. Those contentions having originated, as has been observed, in presumption and excessive confidence, he most appropriately proceeds to make mention of their diseases, the knowledge of which should have the effect of humbling them. First of all, he shows them what enormous wickedness it is to allow one of their society to have an illicit connection with his mother-in-law. It is not certain, whether he had seduced her from his father as a prostitute, or whether he kept her under pretense of marriage. This, however, does not much affect, the subject in hand; for, as in the former case, there would have been an abominable and execrable whoredom, so the latter would have involved an incestuous connection, abhorrent to all propriety and natural decency. Now, that he may not seem to charge them on doubtful suspicions, he says, that the case which he brings forward is well known and in general circulation. For it is in this sense that I take the particle ὅλως (generally) as intimating that it was no vague rumor, but a matter well known, and published everywhere so as to cause great scandal.

From his saying that such a kind of whoredom was not named even among the Gentiles, some are of opinion, that he refers to the incest of Reuben, (Genesis 35:22,) who, in like manner, had an incestuous connection with his mother-in-law. They are accordingly of opinion, that Paul did not make mention of Israel, because a disgraceful instance of this kind had occurred among them, as if the annals of the Gentiles did not record many incestuous connections of that kind! This, then, is an idea that is quite foreign to Paul’s intention; for in making mention of the Gentiles rather than of the Jews, he designed rather to heighten the aggravation of the crime. “You,” says he, “permit, as though it were a lawful thing, an enormity, which would not be tolerated even among the Gentiles — nay more, has always been regarded by them with horror, and looked upon as a prodigy of crime.” When, therefore, he affirms that it was not named among the Gentiles, he does not mean by this, that no such thing had ever existed among them, or was not recorded in their annals, for even tragedies have been founded upon it; but that it was held in detestation by the Gentiles, as a shameful and abominable monstrosity, for it is a beastly lust, which destroys even natural modesty. Should any one ask, “Is it just to reproach all with the sin of one individual?” I answer, that the Corinthians are accused, not because one of their number has sinned, but because, as is stated afterwards, they encouraged by connivance a crime that was deserving of the severest punishment.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) It is reported commonly.—Better, There is absolutely said to be fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles. All the best MSS. omit the word “named.” The force of the statement is that the fornication was of such a kind (with a stepmother) as even the Gentile world, immoral as it was, regarded with disgust, and how infinitely worse, then, was it to find such tolerated amongst Christians, whose moral standard ought to be much higher.

One should have his father’s wife.—The word “have” here used always implies in the New Testament actual marriage. It is, therefore, probable that she had been divorced from his father. The word for “his father’s wife” is the Hebrew form of expression for stepmother. St. Chrysostom suggests “he said not his ‘stepmother,’ but ‘his father’s wife,’ so as to strike much more severely;” but probably St. Paul used the Hebrew phrase instead of the ordinary Greek word for “stepmother,” as it was in this phraseology that such a union was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lev_18:8).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you,.... The apostle having reproved the Corinthians for their schisms and divisions about their ministers, proceeds to charge them with immoralities committed among them, and which were connived at, and took no notice of by them; and particularly a very notorious one, which he here mentions with its aggravated circumstances. It was done among them; not only by one of their citizens, nor merely by one of their hearers, but by one of their members, and so was cognizable by them as a church; for though they had nothing to do with them that were without, yet they were concerned with them that were within: this was a public offence; it was known by everyone, and it was in everybody's mouth; it was heard in all companies; it was "commonly", "universally" talked of, and reported; it was generally known at Corinth, and in all Achaia, so that the church could not plead ignorance, nor could they be excused from blame in not as publicly declaring their abhorrence of the fact, as it was committed, which was fornication: fornication, "generally" taken, might be committed among them in all the branches of it, as that may include simple fornication, adultery, incest, and all acts of uncleanness; wherefore the apostle proceeds to describe that particular instance of fornication, that one of their members was guilty of:

and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife; not but that such unnatural copulations were practised, as among the Indians, Moors, Bactrians, Ethiopians, Medes, and Persians, as reported by sundry writers (y); and among the Arabians, before prohibited by Mahomet (z); but then such marriages and mixtures were not allowed of among the more civil and cultivated nations, as the Grecians and Romans, and never mentioned but with detestation and abhorrence: and if this man was a Jew, it was an aggravation of his sin, that he should be guilty of a crime decried by the Gentiles, as well as it was a violation of a known law of God given to the Jews, Lev 18:7 and, according to the Jewish writers (a), such a man was doubly guilty: their canon is,

"ba tva le abh he that lies with his father's wife is guilty, on account of her being his father's wife, and on account of her being another man's wife, whether in his father's life time, or after his death, and whether espoused or married;''

and such an one was to be stoned. Of this kind was this man's crime; he had his father's wife, not his own mother, but his stepmother; for there is a distinction between a mother and a father's wife, as in the above canon.

"These are to be stoned, he that lies with his mother, or with his father's wife.''

Whether this man had married his father's wife, or kept her as his concubine, continuing in an incestuous cohabitation with her, is not certain, and whether his father was dead or living; which latter seems to be the case from Co2 7:12 his iniquity was abominable and intolerable, and by no means to be winked at in church of Christ.

(y) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 1. c. 24. Curtius, l. 8. c. 2. Philo, de special. leg. p. 77. 8. Tertul. Apolog. c. 9. Min. Foelix, p. 34. Clement. Alex. Paedagog. p. 109. Origen. contr. Cels. l. 6. p. 331. Hieron. adv. Jovin. l. 2. fol. 26. (z) Koran, c. 4. Vid. Pocock. spec, Arab. Hist p. 337, 338. (a) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

Ver. 1. As is not so much as named] To wit, without detestation. The apostle seems to allude to Antiochus Soter, who married his step-mother Stratonice, being first like to die for love of her, as Erasistratus the physician told his father. (Aelian.) Of this incestuous marriage came Antiochus Theos, or Antiochus the god, so called of the Milesians, because he did put down their tyrant Timarehus. This god was poisoned by his wife Laodice.

Among the Gentiles] In Mexico and those parts, whoredom, sodomy, and incest (those Spanish virtues, as one calleth them) are common without reproof; the pope’s pardons being more rife in those parts than in any part of Europe for these abominable filthinesses, whereout he sucketh no small advantage. (Sir Fra. Drake.) Notwithstanding, the Indians abhor this most loathsome living; showing themselves in respect of the Spaniards, as the Scythians did in respect of the Grecians, whom they so far excelled in life and behaviour as they were short of them in learning and knowledge. Who hath not heard of the abhorred incest of the house of Austria? King Philip II could call Archduke Albert both brother, cousin, nephew, and son. (Spec. Europ.) For all this was he to him either by blood or affinity; being uncle to himself, first cousin to his father, husband to his sister, and father to his wife; and all this by papal dispensation. The Papists themselves write with detestation, that in Rome a Jewish maid might not be admitted into the stews of whoredom, unless she would be first baptized. (Espenc. de Continen. iii. 4.)

That one should have his father’s wife] Ethelbald, king of West Saxons, with great infamy marrying his father’s widow Judith, enjoyed his kingdom but two years and a half. (Daniel’s Hist. of Eng.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It is reported - Greek It is heard. There is a rumor. That rumor had been brought to Paul, probably by the members of the family of Chloe, 1Co 1:11.

Commonly - Ὅλως Holōs. Everywhere. It is a matter of common fame. It is so public that it cannot be concealed; and so certain that it cannot be denied. This was all offence, he informs us, which even the pagan would not justify or tolerate; and, therefore, the report had spread not only in the churches, but even among the pagan, to the great scandal of religion - When a report obtains such a circulation, it is certainly time to investigate it, and to correct the evil.

That there is fornication - See the note at Act 15:20. The word is here used to denote incest, because the apostle immediately explains the nature of the offence.

And such fornication ... - An offence that is not tolerated or known among the pagan. This greatly aggravated the offence, that in a Christian church a crime should be tolerated among its members which even gross pagans would regard with abhorrence. That this offence was regarded with abhorrence by even the pagans has been abundantly proved by quotations from classic writers. See Wetstein, Bloomfield, and Whitby. Cicero says of the offence, expressly, that “it was an incredible and unheard of crime.” Pro Cluen. 5. 6 - When Paul says that it was not “so much as named among the Gentiles,” he doubtless uses the word (ὀνομάζεται onomazetai) in the sense of “named with approbation, tolerated,” or “allowed.” The crime was known in a few instances, but chiefly of those who were princes and rulers; but it was no where regarded with approbation, but was always treated as abominable wickedness. All that the connection requires us to understand by the word “named” here is, that it was not tolerated or allowed; it was treated with abhorrence, and it was therefore, more scandalous that it was allowed in a Christian church - Whitby supposes that this offence that was tolerated in the church at Corinth gave rise to the scandals that were circulated among the pagan respecting the early Christians, that they allowed of licentious contact among the members of their churches. This reproach was circulated extensively among the pagan, and the primitive Christians were at much pains to refute it.

That one should have - Probably as his wife; or it may mean simply that he had criminal contact with her. Perhaps some man had parted with his wife, on some account, and his son had married her, or maintained her for criminal contact. It is evident from 2Co 7:12, that the person who had suffered the wrong, as well as he who had done it, was still alive - Whether this was marriage or concubinage, has been disputed by commentators, and it is not possible, perhaps, to determine. See the subject discussed in Bloomfield.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

As the like is not among the heathens. This seems to have been the crime of incest, that he took the wife of his father yet living. See 2 Corinthians vii. 12. (Witham) --- St. John Chrysostom, Theod. [Theodoret?], &c. think, that this incestuous person was one of the chiefs of the schism which then reigned in Corinth. This man, say they, was a great orator, with whose eloquence the Corinthians were enchanted, and therefore dissembled a knowledge of his crime, public as it was. The apostle having proved to them the vanity of all human learning, in the preceding chapter, now attacks the incestuous man, and exposes to their view the enormity of his crime. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The apostle here giveth a reason of the question which he propounded in the former chapter, whether they would be willing that, when he came to them, he should come unto them with a rod? Because such horrid wickedness was committed amongst them, as he, being an apostle to whom Christ had intrusted the government of his church, could not pass over without correction: he instanceth here in one, which he calleth

fornication; by which word is often in Scripture to be understood all species of uncleanness, though, in strict speaking, we by fornication understand the uncleanness of a single person, as by adultery we understand the uncleanness of a person married, and by incest the uncleanness of a person with some near relation, as a mother, a sister: in strict speaking, the sin here reflected on was incest; but the Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures.

Such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles: this sin he aggravates by saying, that the Gentiles by the light of nature discerned and declined such an abomination; by whom is not to be understood the more brutish part, but the more civilized part of the heathen, such as the Romans, &c. were.

That one should have his father’s wife: by having his father’s wife, in this place, is not to be understood, the marrying of his father’s wife, his father being dead; but the using of his father’s wife as his wife while his father was yet alive, (as some judicious interpreters think), because hardly any nation would have endured a son openly to have married the widow of his father. And in 2Co 7:12, there is mention made not only of one that had done, but of another that had suffered the wrong; which latter must be the father himself: so as there was both incest and whoredom in this fact.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Fornication - The original word implies criminal conversation of any kind whatever. His father's wife - While his father was alive.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Necessity of Church Discipline.

A case of incest:

v. 1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

v. 2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

The apostle here opens a new section of his letter, in which he treats of some questions of social morals. The matter of party strife in Corinth had been reported to him by certain witnesses, but the monstrous case of which he now briefly treats is notorious, is a common scandal, is being bandied about wherever the name of Corinth is mentioned: Actually, fornication is heard of among you. It was not a question of vague report, but it was a confirmed, undoubted fact, generally, everywhere spoken of and recounted with horror. For it was a form of fornication, of sexual impurity, which was unknown even among the Gentiles, namely, that a man should have his stepmother as his wife. See Deu 22:30. This was a degree of relationship which was prohibited everywhere, even the heathen respecting the reverence due to the wife of the father, aside from all laws of nature. But the guilty member of the Corinthian congregation, like so many carnal Christians since his days, probably thought that Christian liberty consisted in doing as he pleased and thus changed liberty into license. That was the situation, that was the abomination of foulness found in the midst of the Corinthian congregation. It causes the apostle to ask: And you are puffed up? Under these circumstances it is still possible for some of your members to brag and boast and to act as though you were beyond instruction? With one accord they should have humiliated themselves on account of this unheard-of scandal, instead of fostering party spirit. And not rather have you mourned, broken out in grief, with the result that he who perpetrated this deed should be removed from your midst? They were so busily engaged with their imaginary intellectual brilliance, with their false religious enthusiasm, that they took no time to investigate the injury which was being done to their congregation by this standing offense of their fellow-member. They probably shrugged their shoulders and decided to ignore the disagreeable matter, believing, with many Christians of our days, that the matter was really not of much consequence; they did not consider the incest in their midst an insult to the Church of Christ, a desecration of the temple of God. It was an unfortunate incident, but entirely the man’s own business! Paul, however, impresses upon them he consciousness of responsibility, that they cannot permit such a defilement to go on; they must be stirred up to action. For the sinner must either discontinue his public scandal, or he must be put out of their midst; he can no longer be considered a member of the congregation. Note: The matter of church discipline is sadly neglected in many parts of the Church. But congregations and individual members must never forget: If love for their neighbor’s immortal soul will not induce them to make all efforts in his behalf, even to expulsion from their midst, then the reverence for the name which they bear, and which they dare not dishonor with impunity, should influence them seriously to take up the matter of proper church discipline.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 5:7-8

Our Passover.

I. Our Passover Sacrifice. It is very noteworthy, regard being had to the great prominence which the idea of Christ as our Passover has received in later theology, that there are only two passages in the New Testament which express it—the one in this verse of my text, and the other, the much less obvious one, in the Gospel of St. John, who records that our Lord’s speedy death obviated the necessity for the fracture of His limbs, seeing in that a "fulfilment of the command as to the Paschal Lamb." But, however unfrequent the references, there can be no doubt as to the allusion or as to the dogmatic teaching here. Distinctly and clearly in the Apostle’s mind here, the one conception of Christ’s death which answers to the metaphor is that which sees in Christ’s death a death of expiation, though not so distinctly as in other instances a death of substitution. Because He dies the destruction and the punishment does not fall on the man who is housed behind the shelter of His blood.

II. Our Passover Feast. Of course there is no reference here—not even by implication and in any side way—to the Lord’s Supper. What St. Paul is thinking about here is the whole Christian life which he compares to that Passover feast. And his exhortation, "Let us keep the feast," is in fact, first of all, this—"Do you Christian men and women see to it that your whole life be a participation in the sacrifice of the slain Lamb." The very life of the Christian is derived from communion with Jesus Christ. We are to feed upon Him if we have life at all. And how, then, are we to feed upon a slain Christ? By faith, by meditation, by continual carrying in grateful hearts, in vivid memories, and in obedient wills, the great Sacrifice on which our hopes build."

III. Our Christian purifying. "Purge out the old leaven." Self-purifying is an absolutely indispensable condition of your keeping the feast. It is quite true that no man can cleanse himself without a Divine helper. It is quite true that we shall not even desire to do it thoroughly, much less be able to do it unless there is, preceding, a faith in Jesus Christ, which is a partaking of the slain Passover Lamb. But it is also true that for any continuous, deep, and growing participation in Him and in His power, there must be this cleansing of our spirits from all filthiness, and a perfecting of holiness in the fear of the Lord. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," is but the same teaching as that of my text—"Purge out the old leaven, that ye may keep the feast."

A. Maclaren, Christian Commonwealth, July 9th, 1885.

I. It is the Person to whom St. Paul, firstly and chiefly, here and always, directs the minds of his disciples. Christ, he tells the Church, is the end of the law for righteousness to them that believe. They obtain the righteousness which the law requires them to obtain, but which it cannot confer, by trusting in a Person, in whom the righteousness dwells livingly and in whom it is livingly manifested.

II. "Christ our Passover." In that one word Paul gathers up whatever were the meanings and associations of that festival—all that the different parts of it expressed to the mind of the Jew—the whole course of the Divine history, from the call of Abraham to the time when the voice said, "This is He in whom I am well pleased."

III. "Christ our Passover," says St. Paul,—ours who are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and ours who are grafted into the same stock with them. He signifies all that ever the Passover signified; but the signification is for the whole human family, not for one portion of it. He was the firstborn among many brethren.

IV. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." The complete oblation has been made. Nothing more remains to be done. There is nothing to separate the children from their Father, seeing that He is the perfect Daysman between them.

V. St. Paul, therefore, can say boldly, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." No one can suppose that by the word us he understood the apostles or the Corinthians, or the men of that age exclusively. He did not think that the feast of which they were to eat in full assurance that the redemption had been finished, that they were possessors of all the liberty and grace which it had wrought out, could be charged with any less meaning for those who should be passing through the world’s wilderness eighteen hundred years after. The sacrifice of Christ is God’s sacrifice, not our own. We may come to the feast confessing the malice and wickedness which has been in us. God will not send us empty away. He who of His tender love to mankind gave up His Son for us all, will He not with Him freely give us the purity and love which we have not and never shall have ourselves?

F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. iii., p. 283.

References: 1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8.—R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 2nd series, p. 143; G. Huntington, Sermons for Holy Seasons, 2nd series, p. 199; A. Barry, Three Hundred Outlines, p. 142; J. Keble, Sermons from Easter to Ascension Day, p. 1; Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. vii., p. 101. 1Co 5:8.—J. R. Macduff, Communion Memories, p. 98. 1Co 5:10.—T. B. Dover, A Lent Manual, p. 19. 1Co 5:12, 1Co 5:13.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 18. 1Co 6:1-7.—Expositor, 1st series, vol. i., p. 142.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. The persons, or the people blamed. The famous church of Corinth has fornication, nay, incest, charged upon her. Heinous sins may creep into the best and purest churches, yet doth not a church presently cease to be a true church; nor are Christians presently to separate from the communion of a church, because heinous sins and scandalous offences are found in it. This church of Corinth was a true church, and it was schismatical to separate from her communion, although erroneous principles and scandalous practices were found amongst the members of it.

Observe, 2. The crime charged upon them; namely, that fornication was found amongst them, yea, the highest degree of fornication; to wit, incest. By the general name of fornication, all uncleanness is forbidden, all unlawful conjunctions and sinful mixtures are condemned. By incest is to be understood to uncleanness of a person with some near relation, as a mother, a sister, &c.

Observe, 3. The crime of incest is not barely expressed, but amplified and aggravated by its heinousness, such as was not named among the Gentiles. Not but that many of the more brutish Gentiles were guilty of this sin, but the more civilized amongst the Gentiles did by the light of nature detest and abhor it, condemn and forbid it.

Lord! how sad is it, that what is not so much as named among the heathens should be practised among Christians! whereas such sins ought not to be so much as named among Christians, which are practised among the heathen.

Observe, 4. The notoriousness of the crime: It is commonly reported; the fame, or rather the infamy, of the fact, spread far and near; the sin became so public, that it could not be coloured, much less concealed. All sin is a work of darkness. Uncleanness particularly delights in darkness; therefore the notoriety of the act bespoke the impudence of the agent.

Ah, sad day! when men declare their sin like Sodom, they hide it not. When both shame and fear are cast off, sin hath a hard forehead, a brazen brow.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

TURNING OVER TO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF CARNALITY THAT THE SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED

1. You must remember that while the Corinthian church consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, the latter element decidedly predominated numerically. At Corinth there were several great and terrible sources of temptation to the infant church:

(a) The Greek philosophy, literature culture and refinement was full of idolatry and infidelity, and especially conducive to spiritual pride and contempt of the unassuming simplicity and humility peculiar to the Christian religion.

(b) The awful and predominant trend, especially of the lower classes, to gross debauchery and brutal sensuality; all this being augmented and encouraged by their Paganistic religion, in which they had been born and reared; e. g., Venus, the goddess of love, i. e., lust, was worshipped there more extravagantly than anywhere else in all the world, more than a thousand priestesses (i. e., lewd women) serving at her altars, proclaiming her divinity and vindicating her majesty, thus presenting the greatest possible encouragement to licentiousness.

(c) Corinth was the scene of the Isthmian games, celebrated there every quadrennium, commanding notoriety and patronage throughout the known world, and concentrating countless multitudes of people from all nationalities, which proved a great source of vicious influx. For the above reasons, you find much more warning and denunciation against sensuality and debauchery in the Corinthian epistles than elsewhere throughout the New Testament. It is pertinent to observe that this great multitude, having been recently converted largely out of the slums of the city, were exceedingly crude and rough material out of which to constitute a Christian church.

“Where sin did abound, there did grace much more abound” (Rom 5:20).

This Scripture was signally verified in the Corinthian church, where we find the most appalling profligacy on the one side and the brightest and even hyperbolical spiritual gifts on the other. “Truly fornication is heard of among you, and such fornication which is not among the heathens, that one should have his father’s wife.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father's wife . [i. e., his step-mother. She was probably a pagan, and hence is not rebuked. The offense of the Corinthians had been magnified in that they had let Paul find out their sin by public gossip. Though they had written to him seeking light on other matters ( 1Co_7:1 ), they had not even mentioned this deplorable wickedness. Such incest was of course condemned by the Jewish law ( Lev_18:8 ; Deu_27:20 ). But even Corinth, moral cesspool that it was, would be scandalized by such a crime, for it was condemned alike by Greeks and Romans. See the Oedipus of Sophocles, the Hippolytus of Euripides, and Cicero's Pro Cluentio, 5. As to such a case Cicero uses these words: "Oh, incredible wickedness, and--except in this woman's case--unheard in all experience!"]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1 Corinthians Chapter 5

He begins to treat the details of conduct and of discipline; and, first of all, the carnal defilement carried on in their midst to the last degree of hardness of conscience. Those who sought their own personal influence as teachers allowed them to go on in it. He condemns it without reservation. Discipline follows; for Christ had been offered up as the Paschal Lamb, and they were to keep the feast without leaven, keeping themselves from the old leaven; in order that they might be in fact, what they were before God-an unleavened lump. As to discipline, it was this: before they knew that it was their duty to cut off the wicked person, and that God had given them the power and imposed on them the obligation to do so, a moral sense of evil ought, at least, to have led them to humble themselves before God, and to pray that He would take him away. On the contrary, they were puffed up with pride. But now the apostle teaches them what must be done, and enforces it with all his apostolic authority. He was among them in spirit if not in body, and with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, they being gathered together, to deliver such a one to Satan; but as a brother for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day of Christ.

Here all the power of the assembly in its normal condition, united to and led by the apostolic energy, is displayed. Its members; the apostle, vessel and channel of the power of the Spirit; and the power of the Lord Jesus Himself, the Head of the body. Now the world is the theatre of Satan’s power; the assembly, delivered from his power, is the habitation of God by the Spirit. If the enemy had succeeded in drawing aside by the flesh a member of Christ, so that he dishonours the Lord by walking after the flesh as men of the world do, he is put outside, and by the power of the Spirit, as then exercised in their midst by the apostle, delivered up to the enemy, who is in spite of himself the servant of the purposes of God (as in the case of Job), in order that the flesh of the Christian (which, from his not being able to reckon it dead, had brought him morally under the power of Satan) should be physically destroyed and broken down. Thus would he be set free from the illusions in which the flesh held him captive. His mind would learn how to discern the difference between good and evil, to know what sin was. The judgment of God would be realised within him, and would not be executed upon him at that day when it would be definitive for the condemnation of those who should undergo it. This was a great blessing, although its form was terrible. Marvellous example of the government of God, which uses the adversary’s enmity against the saints as an instrument for their spiritual blessing! We have such a case fully set before us in the history of Job. Only we have here. in addition, the proof that in its normal state, apostolic power [7] being there, the assembly exercised this judgment herself, having discernment by the Spirit and the authority of Christ to do it. Moreover, whatever may be the spiritual capacity of the assembly to wield this sword of the Lord (for this is power), her positive and ordinary duty is stated at the end of the chapter.

The assembly was an unleavened lump, looked at in the Spirit as an assembly, and not individually. It is thus that we must view it, for it is only in the Spirit that it is so. The assembly is seen of God as being before Him in the new nature in Christ. Such she ought to be in practice by the power of the Spirit, in spite of the existence of the flesh, which by faith she ought to count as dead, and allow nothing in her walk that is contrary to this state. The assembly ought to be a “new lump,” and was not if evil was allowed, and, consequently, ought to purge herself from the old leaven, because she is unleavened in God’s thoughts. Such is her position before God. For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us: therefore we ought to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. They did wrong therefore in boasting while this evil was in their midst, however great their gifts might be. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. The evil did not attach to that man alone who was personally guilty of it. The assembly was not clear till the evil was put out (2Co 7:11). They could not dissociate themselves in the intercourse of ordinary life from all those who, in the world, walked corruptly, for in that case they would have to go out of the world. But if any one called himself a brother and walked in this corruption, with such a one they ought not even to eat. God judges those who are outside. The assembly must herself judge those that are within, and put out whatever must be called “wicked.”

Footnotes for 1 Corinthians Chapter 5

7: The apostle (1Ti 1:20) exercises this power alone as to certain blasphemers. It is power, not mere duty, and it is important clearly to distinguish the two: though the apostle here did it in and with the gathered assembly, yet he says, “I have judged already to deliver such an one to Satan. In1 Corinthians 5:13 we have the positive duty of the assembly without the question of special power.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–5. There is fornication among you. Licentiousness was one of the besetting sins of the Gentiles at this time. Purity of life was almost unknown. So far was unchastity from being held in disrepute that temples were everywhere dedicated to Aphrodite (Venus), and in Corinth at the time when Paul wrote there stood one with a thousand priestesses, harlots, a gigantic brothel in the name of religion. It is not wonderful that time was required to cleanse the church, formed of converts from these heathen, from impurity. As is not named among the Gentiles. There was in the church a still worse case than the Gentiles would condone; a man had taken, probably after the death of his father, his father's wife, his own step-mother. This sort of incest was condemned by Greeks and Romans (Cicero, Oratio pro Cluentio).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul now specifically states about what sin of theirs he has heard, and how the Corinthian believers are proud of their acceptance of that man and his sin.

that is not even permitted among the Gentiles

This can be stated in active form. AT: "that not even the Gentiles permit" (See: Active or Passive)

one of you is sleeping with

"Sleeping with" here is a euphemism for "commiting adultery with" AT: one of you is commiting adultery with" (See: Euphemism)

father's wife

the wife of his father, but probably not his own mother

Should you not mourn instead?

This rhetorical question is used to scold the Corinthians. AT: "You should mourn over this instead!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

The one who did this must be removed from among you

This can be stated in active form. AT: "You must remove the one who did this from among you" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

sexual immorality

Gentile

had relations with

ancestor

arrogant

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1–8. THE CASE OF THE INCESTUOUS PERSON.

1. [ὀνομάζεται] after ἔθνεσιν. All the best uncials omit this. So Vetus Lat. and Vulg. Also Origen. But it is found in the Peshito.

1. ὅλως. There is a difficulty in the translation of this word. It usually means altogether or on the whole. Neither of these renderings would give a good sense here. It occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only in ch. 1Co 6:7, 1Co 15:29, and in Mat 5:34. In the first of these it has the meaning altogether. In the other two it has the usual meaning, with a negative, of not at all. Here it must be rendered ‘universally.’ ‘It is everywhere reported,’ &c. Meyer, however, would render ‘one hears generally’ (überhaupt, im Allgemeinen).

ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία. This explains the mention of the ‘rod’ in the last verse.

ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, of a kind that does not exist even among the Gentiles. Two considerations of some importance, bearing on Church history, are suggested by this passage. The first bids us dismiss the idea that the Christian Church at the beginning of its career was a pattern of Christian perfection. Corinth (see Introduction) was more depraved even than most heathen cities. Accordingly, the Corinthian community, as described here and in chap. 1Co 11:21, was lamentably ignorant of the first principles of Christian morality and Christian decency, and the Apostle had to begin by laying the very foundations of a system of morals among his converts. It is probable that nowhere, save in the earlier years of the Church at Jerusalem, was there any body of Christians which was not very far from realizing the Christian ideal, and which was not continually in need of the most careful supervision. The second point is that St Paul’s idea of discipline seems to have differed greatly from the principles which were creeping into the Church at the end of the second century. See 1Co 5:5, and compare it with 2Co 2:5-8, which seems plainly to refer to the same person. In spite of the gravity of the crime—it would seem (2Co 7:12) that it was committed while the father was alive—we find here nothing of the long, in some instances life-long, penance which had become the rule of the Church for grave offences before the end of the third century. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remark that by the words ‘father’s wife,’ stepmother is meant. But the language of the Apostle seems to imply that she had been divorced by the father and married to the son, a proceeding which the shameful laxity of Corinthian society rendered possible. The Rabbis, moreover, held that all existing relations were dissolved by baptism and circumcision. Thus Jewish rigorism and heathen licence were alike opposed to the higher morality of the Church. See note on ch. 1Co 7:11. Estius, however, thinks that the son was living publicly with his father’s wife, as though she were his own.

ἔχειν. Meyer insists that this word is only used of marriage. But Joh 4:18 shews that it is also used of unlawful connections. Therefore it is quite impossible to infer from the word whether or not a marriage had taken place.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Commonly [ολως] . Better, absolutely or actually, as Rev.

Should have. Opinions are divided as to whether the relation was that of marriage or concubinage. The former is urged on the ground that ecein to have is commonly used in the New Testament of marriage; and that the aorist participles poihsav (so Tex. Rec.) had done, and katergasamenon hath wrought, imply that an incestuous marriage had already taken place. It is urged, on the other hand, that ecein to have is used of concubinage, Joh 4:18; but it takes its meaning there from the sense of marriage in the preceding clause, and is really a kind of play on the word. "He who now stands for thy husband is not thy husband." The indications seem to be in favor of marriage. Notwithstanding the facilities for divorce afforded by the Roman law, and the loose morals of the Corinthians, for a man to marry his stepmother was regarded as a scandal.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 1. “In general, it is reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not found even among the Gentiles, that one hath his father’s wife.”

The first word, ὅλως, has been variously explained. It signifies totally, and hence in general or summarily, but never certainly, as some have sought to understand it here. If this adverb qualifies ἀκούεται, it is reported, we may explain, “it is reported everywhere.” But Paul would have found a clearer term to express this idea. Or we might understand it, “People talk generally of fornication among you;” but the sequel, καὶ τοιαύτη, and such fornication,...does not at all suit this meaning. The adjunct ἐν ὑμῖν, among you, cannot, of course, depend on ἀκούεται, it is reported; it must necessarily be referred to an οὖσα, being, understood: “It is reported that there is fornication among you.” If it is so, the meaning of ὅλως is determined by the gradation following: καὶ τοιαύτη, and even such: “The vice of fornication exists in general among you, and it is even such a case as would scandalize the Gentiles themselves.” The word ὅλως is used, 1Co 6:7, exactly in the same way.

The verb ὀνομάζεται, is named, in T. R., is a gloss taken from Eph 5:3. The word is wanting in most of the Mjj. We have simply to understand ἐστί.

Instead of saying, his father’s wife, Paul might have used the word μητρυιά, step-mother; but the former expression brought out more strongly the enormity of the act. This is also expressed forcibly by the position of the pronoun τινά between the two terms wife and father. Was the father still living? We can hardly think so; the act would be too odious. The marriage of a son with his step-mother was forbidden among the Jews under pain of death (Lev 18:8). The Roman law equally forbade it. It is therefore probable that this union had not been legally sanctioned. Of the impression produced by such acts, even among the heathen, when they did exceptionally take place, we may judge from the words of Cicero in his defence of Cluentius: “O incredible crime for a woman, and such as has never been heard of in this world in any other than her solitary case!”

It appears from the whole chapter that the man only was a Christian; for if the woman had not been still a heathen, would not Paul have judged her as severely as the man? And what has been the conduct of the Corinthians in view of such a scandal?

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.