1 Corinthians 5:11

5:11 Separation from a professing believer who was living in sin was intended to reinforce and maintain the high moral standards of the Christian community. The social pressure it exerted might also encourage repentance in an erring brother or sister (cp. 2 Thes 3:6, 14).

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

1Co 5:11. Ἀδελφὸς, a brother) an ordinary appellation.—ὀνομαζόμενος, who is called) A word in the middle voice [or rather, used in a middle sense, neither a favourable nor unfavourable sense].—πόρνος, a fornicator) the crimes are here enumerated, on account of which others are to be avoided; then in 1Co 6:9-10, more are added, on account of which every man should fear for himself.[43]—μηδὲ συνεσθίειν, not so much as to eat) not only not with such a man as a host, but not even with him at the house of a third person. The lowest degree of intercourse, which men have, when mixed up in company with one another, is to eat together. Even among the Jews, חרם, excommunication took away all intercourse in regard to eating together. We must not eat with the man, who shall be unfit to eat along with the saints in the kingdom of God, 1Co 6:10. Let the Church of the present day take heed, in which the guests at the Lord’s table are not like children in one family, but like a number of strangers of various kinds in a large inn.

[43] Μέθυσος, a drunkard) It indicates the man who drinks large quantities of wine, although he does not break out into unbridled revellings.—V. g.

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

1Co_5:11. Νυνὶ δέ] But thus (see on Rom_3:21), in reality as contrasted with the aforesaid misconstruction, I did write to you. Herewith Paul now introduces the true meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above, 1Co_5:9. Other expositors make νυνὶ δέ refer to time: but at present (Cajetanus, Morus, Pott, Heydenreich). But the whole context is against this; according to it, Pauls design is simply to define more precisely the purport of that phrase in his former letters: μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις. He has done this only negatively in 1Co_5:10, but goes on now to do it positively in 1Co_5:11. Further, were a contrast drawn between the present and the former letter, the present γράφω would have been more natural and more distinct than the epistolary aorist (see on Gal_6:11); nay, to obviate the misunderstanding, it would have been a thing of necessity, 1Co_4:14.

ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμ.] the most important element in the more definite explanation[838] which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition: being called a brother, i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp ὄνομα ἔχειν, Rev_3:1. Estius, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins ὀνομαζ. with what comes after, in the sense of: if a brother is a notorious fornicator, having the name of being such. But ὀνομάζεσθαι means always simply to be called, without any such pregnancy of significance either in a good or bad sense (even in Eph_1:21; Eph_5:3; Rom_15:20). Had Paul wished to express the meaning of: bearing the character and repute of a fornicator, he must have used the phrase ὀνομάζεσθαι εἶναι πόρνος (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 428 E; Prot. p. 311 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its moral force.

λοίδορος] as in 1Co_6:10; comp on 1Co_4:12.

εἰδωλολάτρης] Estius observes well that this applies to the Christian, who sive ex animo, seu metu, seu placendi voluntate, seu quavis alia ratione inductus, infidelium sacris se admiscet, ut vel idolum colat, opere saltem externo, vel de idolothytis edat. Comp 1Co_6:9, 1Co_8:10, 1Co_10:7, 1Co_14:1; Joh_5:21; and Düsterdieck in loc[842] Among the frivolous Corinthians, such reversions to the old habits and fellowship might not be uncommon.

μέθυσος] used by old writers only of the female sex; but of the male also in later Greek, after Menander. See Wetstein; Lobeck, a[843] Phryn. p. 151 f.; Meineke, Menander, p. 27.

There are no traces discernible of a logical order in the series of vices here enumerated beyond this, that the three which are of specifically heathen character are put first, and then three others follow, which destroy the peace of the church-life.

τῷ τ. μηδὲ συνεσθ.] parallel, though by way of climax, to the μὴ συναναμ.; hence not anacoluthic in point of construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the Agapae (Vorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydenreich), which would suit neither the quite general phrase συνεσθ. (comp 1Co_11:20) nor the intensifying μηδέ. It means: with one so constituted (comp 1Co_5:5) not even to have fellowship at table (neither to ask him to your table, nor sit with him at his). Comp Luk_15:2; Gal_2:12. This implies of course of itself, that they ought also to have no fellowship at the Agapae with such persons. Εἰ δὲ κοινῆς τροφῆς τοῖς τοιούτοις οὐ δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, ἤπου γε μυστικῆς τε καὶ θείας, Theodoret. Respecting the distinction between the μὴ συναναμίγν. and excommunication, see 2Th_3:15.

[838] This more detailed definition, therefore, cannot have been given expressly in the lost Epistle, but must have been taken for granted as self-evident. Otherwise they could not have so misinterpreted the συναναμίγ. πόρνοις as they had actually done. For there is no indication in the text that the misinterpretation was a wilful and malicious one, arising out of κακία κ. πονηρία, ver. 8 (Hofmann).

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

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

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 5:11 . νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα , “But now I have written” in contrast to the Εγραψα … ἐν τῇ ἐπιστ . of 1Co 5:9 : “If any one doubted the purport of the former letter, it shall be impossible to mistake my meaning now ”. The logical (not temporal) sense of νῦν (or νυνί ) is preferred by some interpreters: “But now after this, as things now appear (you must understand that) I wrote,” etc., this ἔγραψα thus repeating the former. Νυνὶ δὲ bears the like emphatic temporal sense in 2Co 8:11 , Eph 2:13 . ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος , “if any one bearing the name of brother ” the point of the amended rule, which P. in writing before had apparently left to the common-sense of his readers, but is compelled to make explicit. So the μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι clearly signifies not to hold fraternal, friendly commerce with vicious men: cf. 1Co 15:33 . Such a one may be “named,” but is not, “a brother”; cf. Rev 3:1 . Among the kinds of sinners proscribed P. now inserts the λοίδορος (see note on 1Co 4:12 ), the “railer,” “reviler” the foul-mouthed abuser of others; and the μέθυσος , “drunkard” a word bearing in earlier Gr [871] a comic sense, tipsy , afterwards seriously used (Lt [872] ): these sins are companions; cf. 1Co 6:10 . τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν : “with him that is such (I bid you) not even to eat”. The inf [873] is pr [874] of usage, practice; cf. Gal 2:12 . “Eating together is a sign of friendliness; business transactions are not. If the ref [875] be restricted to Christian fellowship ( sc. the Agapé), the emphatic not even is out of place” (Ed [876] ). To forbid intercourse to this extent implies expulsion from the Church, and more; cf. 2Th 3:14 f. (milder treatment), Mat 18:17 . That it should be possible for an actual “idolater” not merely one who “sits in an idol’s house” (1Co 8:10 ) as a place indifferent, or who still in some sort believes in its power (1Co 8:7 ) to be in the Church is evidence of the laxity of Cor [877] Christianity. That this was really the case, and that some Cor [878] , perhaps of philosophical, semi-pantheistic tendencies, wished to combine the worship of the heathen temple with that of the Christian Church, appears likely from 1Co 10:14-22 ; the same syncretism is found in India now; cf. the case of Naaman, 2Ki 5:17 f.

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

[872] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).

[873] infinitive mood.

[874] present tense.

[875] reference.

[876] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[877] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[878] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

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

1Co_5:11

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

But now (νυνὶ δέ). If taken in the ordinary sense, these particles refer to time. In the former epistle I wrote to you so and so, but now I write to you, etc. They may have an inferential sense therefore. Since ye cannot go out of the world, therefore I wrote unto you. The apostle is explaining the meaning of what he had written. I did not write this, but I wrote, i.e. I meant, this. This explanation best suits the context, and agrees better with the force of the tense (ἔγραψα), here used; for although the aorist of this verb is used in the epistolary style in reference to the letter in the process of writing, it is not used to express what is about to be written. The command is not to associate with any one who is called a brother, and yet is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer (slanderer), or a drunkard, or an extortioner. A man in professing to be a Christian professes to renounce all these sins; if he does not act consistently with his profession, he is not to be recognized as a Christian. We are not to do any thing which would sanction the assumption that the offenses here referred to are tolerated by the gospel. It may appear strange that Paul should assume that any one calling himself a Christian could be an idolater. By idolatry, however, he understands not merely the intentional and conscious worship of false gods, but doing any thing which, according to the common judgment of men, expresses such worship. Thus eating sacrifices within the precincts of a temple was an act of heathen worship, as much as partaking of the Lords supper is an act of Christian worship. And yet some of the Corinthians did not hesitate to eat of heathen sacrifices under those circumstances, 1Co_10:14-22. The principle laid down by the apostle is, that to join in the religious rites of any people is to join in their worship, whether we so intend it or not.

With such an one no not to eat. This does not refer to the Lords supper, which is never designated as a meal. The meaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any way as a Christian, even by eating with him. It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize them as his followers. So we may eat with such persons as are here described, provided we do not thereby recognize their Christian character. This is not a command to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the church, by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated. The command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea for the tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the church.

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

But now--"Now" does not express time, but "the case being so," namely, that to avoid fornicators, &c., of the world, you would have to leave the world altogether, which would be absurd. So "now" is used in Heb 11:16. Thus we avoid making the apostle now retract a command which he had before given.

I have written--that is, my meaning in the letter I wrote was "not to keep company," &c.

a brother--contrasted with a "fornicator . . . of the world" (Co1 5:10). There is less danger in associating with open worldlings than with carnal professors. Here, as in Eph 5:3, Eph 5:5, "covetousness" is joined with "fornication": the common fount of both being "the fierce and ever fiercer longing of the creature, which has turned from God, to fill itself with the inferior objects of sense" [TRENCH, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament]. Hence "idolatry" is associated with them: and the covetous man is termed an "idolater" (Num 25:1-2). The Corinthians did not fall into open idolatry, but ate things offered to idols, so making a compromise with the heathen; just as they connived at fornication. Thus this verse prepares for the precepts in Co1 8:4, &c. Compare the similar case of fornication, combined with a similar idolatrous compromise, after the pattern of Israel with the Midianites (Rev 2:14).

no not to eat--not to sit at the same table with such; whether at the love-feasts (agapæ) or in private intercourse, much more at the Lord's table: at the last, too often now the guests "are not as children in one family, but like a heterogeneous crowd of strangers in an inn" [BENGEL] (compare Gal 2:12; Jo2 1:10-11).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 11. But now I have written] I not only write this, but I add more: if any one who is called a brother, i.e. professes the Christian religion, be a fornicator, covetous, idolater, railer, drunkard, or extortioner, not even to eat with such-have no communion with such a one, in things either sacred or civil. You may transact your worldly concerns with a person that knows not God, and makes no profession of Christianity, whatever his moral character may be; but ye must not even thus far acknowledge a man professing Christianity, who is scandalous in his conduct. Let him have this extra mark of your abhorrence of all sin; and let the world see that the Church of God does not tolerate iniquity.

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

11. If he who is called a brother In the Greek there is a participle without a verb. Those that view this as referring to what follows, bring out here a forced meaning, and at variance with Paul’s intention. I confess, indeed, that that is a just sentiment, and worthy of being particularly noticed — that no one can be punished by the decision of the Church, but one whose sin has become matter of notoriety; but these words of Paul cannot be made to bear that meaning. What he means, then, is this: “If any one is reckoned a brother among you, and at the same time leads a wicked life, and such as is unbecoming a Christian, keep aloof from his society.” In short, being called a brother, means here a false profession, which has no corresponding reality. Farther, he does not make a complete enumeration of crimes, but merely mentions five or six by way of example, and then afterwards, under the expression such an one, he sums up the whole; and he does not mention any but what fall under the knowledge of men. For inward impiety, and anything that is secret, does not fall within the judgment of the Church.

It is uncertain, however, what he means by an idolater For how can he be devoted to idolatry who has made a profession of Christ? Some are of opinion that there were among the Corinthians at that time some who received Christ but in half, and in the mean time were involved, nevertheless, in corrupt superstition, as the Israelites of old, and afterwards the Samaritans maintained a kind of worship of God, but at the same time polluted it with wicked superstitions. For my part, I rather understand it of those who, while they held idols in contempt, gave, nevertheless, a pretended homage to the idols, with the view of gratifying the wicked. Paul declares that such persons ought not to be tolerated in the society of Christians; and not without good reason, inasmuch as they made so little account of trampling God’s glory under foot. We must, however, observe the circumstances of the case — that, while they had a Church there, in which they might worship God in purity, and have the lawful use of the sacraments, they came into the Church in such a way as not to renounce the profane fellowship of the wicked. I make this observation, in order that no one may think that we ought to employ equally severe measures against those who, while at this day dispersed under the tyranny of the Pope, pollute themselves with many corrupt rites. These indeed, I maintain, sin generally in this respect, and they ought, I acknowledge, to be sharply dealt with, and diligently urged, that they may learn at length to consecrate themselves wholly to Christ; but I dare not go so far as to reckon them worthy of excommunication, for their case is different.

With such an one not even to take food. In the first place, we must ascertain whether he addresses here the whole Church, or merely individuals. I answer, that this is said, indeed, to individuals, but, at the same time, it is connected with their discipline in common; for the power of excommunicating is not allowed to any individual member, but to the entire body. When, therefore, the Church has excommunicated any one, no believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with him; otherwise the authority of the Church would be brought into contempt, if each individual were at liberty to admit to his table those who have been excluded from the table of the Lord. By partaking of food here, is meant either living together, or familiar association in meals. For if, on going into an inn, I see one who has been excommunicated sitting at table, there is nothing to hinder me from dining with him; for I have not authority to exclude him. What Paul means is, that, in so far as it is in our power, we are to shun the society of those whom the Church has cut off from her communion.

The Roman antichrist, not content with this severity, has burst forth into interdicts, prohibiting any one from helping one that has been excommunicated to food, or fuel, or drink, or any other of the supports of life. Now, that is not strictness of discipline, but tyrannical and barbarous cruelty, that is altogether at variance with Paul’s intention. For he means not that he should be counted as an enemy, but as a brother, (2 Thessalonians 3:15;) for in putting this public mark of disgrace upon him, the intention is, that he may be filled with shame, and brought to repentance. And with this dreadful cruelty, if God is pleased to permit, do they rage even against the innocent. Now, granting that there are sometimes those who are not undeserving of this punishment, I affirm, on the other hand, that this kind of interdict is altogether unsuitable to an ecclesiastical court.

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.

(11) But now I have written unto you . . .—i.e., “But what I meant was” that you were not to associate with a Christian guilty of these things. It may seem strange that the word “idolater” should be included in this category; for in what sense could a “brother” be a worshipper of idols? It is probable that the word “idolater” has involved in it the idea, not merely of worshipping an image, but of the sensuality which accompanied various forms of heathen worship, and of which evidently some of the Corinthian brethren were partakers. (See Eph_5:5, and Col_3:5, where “idolatry” is identified with a vice kindred to lasciviousness.)

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

11. I have written] Literally, I wrote, i.e. in the former Epistle.

called a brother] i.e. as being so in name only.

an extortioner] Latin rapax, a kindred word to that used in the original. Distinct from the covetous man in that he uses force rather than fraud to deprive men of their property.

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.

But now have I written unto you,.... Which shows, that what he had written before was at another time, and in another epistle; but not that what he was now writing was different from the former, only he explains the persons of whom, and the thing about which he has before written:

not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator; or if any man that is a brother is called, or named a fornicator; or covetous, or an idolater; or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no, not to eat. The apostle's meaning is, that in his prohibition of keeping company with men of the above character, he would be understood of such persons as were called brethren; who had been received into the church, and had been looked upon, and had professed themselves to be such; and who might be mentioned by name, as notoriously guilty of fornication, covetousness, idolatry, and extortion, mentioned in the former verse; to which are added two other sins any of them might be addicted to, as "railing" either at their fellow brethren and Christians, or others giving reproachful language to them, and fixing invidious characters on them: and "drunkenness"; living in the frequent commission of that sin, and others before spoken of; and that such persons remaining impenitent and incorrigible, still persisting, in such a vicious course of life, after due admonition given them, were not only to be removed from their religious society, from the communion of the church, and be debarred sitting down, and eating with them at the Lord's table, or at their love feasts, but also were to be denied civil conversation and familiarity with them, and even not suffered to eat common food at the same table with them: which though lawful to be used with the men of the world, yet for some reasons were not advisable to be used with such; partly for vindicating the honour of religion, and preventing the stumbling of the weak; and partly to make such offenders ashamed, and bring them to repentance. The apostle alludes to the behaviour of the Jews, either to persons that were under any pollution, as a woman in the days of her separation, when her husband , "might not eat with her" off of the same plate, nor at the same table, nor on the same cloth; nor might she drink with him, nor mix his cup for him; and the same was observed to persons that had issues on them (o): or rather to such as were under "the sentence of excommunication", and such an one was obliged to sit the distance of four cubits from others, and who might not eat nor drink with him; nor was he allowed to wash and shave himself, nor a sufficiency of food, nor any to sit with him within the space of four cubits, except those of his house (p).

(o) Maimon. Hilch. Issure Bia, c. 11. sect. 17, 18, 19. & Tumaot Okelim, c. 16. sect. 11. & R. Abraham in ib. (p) T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. & Piske Tosaph. in ib. art. 67, 68.

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

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Ver. 11. Not to keep company] Gr. συναναμιγνυσθαι, not to be mingled with them. The rivers of Peru, after they have run into the main sea, yea, some write twenty or thirty miles, they keep themselves unmixed with the salt water; so that a very great way within the sea men may take up as fresh water as if they were near the land. So at Belgrade in Hungary, where the Danube and Sara (two great rivers) meet, their waters mingle no more than water and oil, &c. We must so converse with the wicked, as that we commingle not by holding any needless society with such, no, not with him that is called a brother, but belies his profession. Yet still must we perform to such, though excommunicated, offices of charity, natural and civil duties, as those of parents toward their children, of children toward their parents, and the like. But come not near such stinking stuff, except ye have the wind of it.

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.

“But now.” In this Epistle. This shows that he had written a former letter.

I have written to you. - Above. I have designed to give this injunction that you are to be entirely separated from one who is a professor of religion and who is guilty of these things.

Not to keep company - To be wholly separated and withdrawn from such a person. Not to associate with him in any manner.

If any man that is called a brother - Any professing Christian; any member of the church.

Be a fornicator ... - Like him who is mentioned, 1Co 5:1.

Or an idolater - This must mean those persons who, while they professed Christianity, still attended the idol feasts, and worshipped there. Perhaps a few such may have been found who had adopted the Christian profession hypocritically.

Or a railer - A reproachful man; a man of coarse, harsh, and bitter words; a man whose characteristic it was to abuse others; to vilify their character, and wound their feelings. It is needless to say how much this is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and to the example of the Master, “who when he was reviled, reviled not again.”

Or a drunkard - Perhaps there might have been some then in the church, as there are now, who were addicted to this vice. It has been the source of incalculable evils to the church; and the apostle, therefore, solemnly enjoins on Christians to have no fellowship with a man who is intemperate.

With such an one no not to eat - To have no contact or fellowship with him of any kind; not to do anything that would seem to acknowledge him as a brother; with such an one not even to eat at the same table. A similar course is enjoined by John; 2Jo 1:10-11. This refers to the contact of common life, and not particularly to the communion. The true Christian was wholly to disown such a person, and not to do anything that would seem to imply that he regarded him as a Christian brother. It will be seen here that the rule was much more strict in regard to one who professed to be a Christian than to those who were known and acknowledged pagans. The reasons may have been:

(1) The necessity of keeping the church pure, and of not doing anything that would seem to imply that Christians were the patrons and friends of the intemperate and the wicked.

(2) In respect to the pagan, there could be no danger of its being supposed that Christians regarded them as brethren, or showed to them any more than the ordinary civilities of life; but in regard to those who professed to be Christians, but who were drunkards, or licentious, if a man was on terms of intimacy with them, it would seem as if he acknowledged them as brethren and recognized them as Christians.

(3) This entire separation and withdrawing from all communion was necessary in these times to save the church from scandal, and from the injurious reports which were circulated. The pagan accused Christians of all manner of crime and abominations. These reports were greatly injurious to the church. But it was evident that currency and plausibility would be given to them if it was known that Christians were on terms of intimacy and good fellowship with pagans and intemperate persons. Hence, it became necessary to withdraw wholly from them to withhold even the ordinary courtesies of life; and to draw a line of total and entire separation. Whether this rule in its utmost strictness is demanded now, since the nature of Christianity is known, and since religion cannot be in “so much” danger from such reports, may be made a question. I am inclined to the opinion that the ordinary civilities of life may be shown to such persons; though certainly nothing that would seem to recognize them as Christians. But as neighbors and relatives; as those who may be in distress and want, we are assuredly not forbidden to show toward them the offices of kindness and compassion. Whitby and some others, however, understand this of the communion of the Lord’s Supper and of that only.

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

Of late there have been some disputes what eating is here intended, whether at the Lord’s table, or at our common tables. Intimacy of communion is that which undoubtedly is here signified by eating; and the apostle’s meaning is, that the members of this church should forbear any unnecessary fellowship and communion with any persons that went under the name of Christians, and yet indulged themselves in any notorious and scandalous courses of life; of which he reckoneth up several sorts.

1. Unclean persons, noted for any kind of uncleanness.

2. Covetous persons; by which he understands all such as, out of their too great love of money, either scandalously sought to add to their heap, or to detain what was others’ just due.

3. Idolaters; by which he understands such as out of fear, or to gain favour with the heathen amongst whom they lived, would frequent and perform Divine worship in the idol’s temple.

4. Railers, such as used their tongues intemperately and scandalously, to the prejudice of others’ reputation.

5. Drunkards; under which notion he comprehends all such as drank hot liquors intemperately, whether they had such an effect upon them as to deprive them of the use of their reason or not.

6. Extortioners, viz. such as, being in any place, exacted more than was their due of those that were under their power.

But yet by this interpretation the argument is not lost against eating with such at the table of the Lord, which is no more necessary communion with them, than civil eating is; for neither hath God spread that table for any such, neither ought any church to endure any such persons in its communion: nor are any Christians bound for ever to abide in the communion of that church, which shall wilfully neglect the purging out of such old leaven. Admitting this precept prohibitive of a civil intimacy with scandalous persons, though they be called brethren, it holds a fortiori, as a stronger argument against religious communion with such, in ordinances to which, apparently, they have no proximate right.

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

11. But now—In this letter written here to define more clearly my former words.

Called a brother—Whom your associating with would, constructively, sanction his claim to brotherhood in the Church.

Not to eat—In such a way as would seem to admit to the pagans of Corinth a Church association with him. This does not mean merely to refuse sacramental communion with him, but the interchange of table hospitalities; a separateness necessarily more severe in a heathen than a Christian community. The intention is not to punish him, or to make an enemy of him, or to render him miserable; but to secure the Church equally from the infection and the disgrace of his fellowship. Seneca (quoted by Wetstein) says: “It matters not so much what, as with whom, you eat and drink.”

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

But now I have written unto you. The tense used is, perhaps, the epistolary aorist, and is therefore equivalent to "but now I write to you;" otherwise the sense is, "but what I meant in my letter was," etc. The position of the words rather favours this view. St. Paul expressly tells them in 1Co_10:27 that he never intended to forbid all intercourse with heathens. They were not to be "taken out of the world," but to be free from evil. (Joh_17:15) If any man that is called a brother. The word "brother" was used before the name "Christian" was accepted by the members of the Church. Or an idolater. (see 1Co_5:10 1Co_10:7, 1Co_10:14) He might call himself a Christian, and yet be in reality an idolater. (Eph_5:5; Col_3:5; Galatians 1Jn_5:21) With such a one no not to eat. If the phrase be pressed, it would involve exclusion from all privileges of the body, for the Holy Communion was celebrated in connection with the agapae. But the general meaning is that of 2Th_3:6, "We command you... that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly."

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

Who is named a brother - That is, a Christian; especially if a member of the same congregation. Rapacious - Guilty of oppression, extortion, or any open injustice. No, not to eat with him - Which is the lowest degree of familiarity.

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

11-13. “But now I have written unto you not to associate with him; any one denominated a brother may be a covetous person, or a fornicator, or an idolater, or a scold, or a drunkard or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat — Take away the wicked person from you yourselves.” Here is a positive commandment for them not to associate or to eat with their old companions who are still living in sin in the dark vices here specified; at the same time commanding them to excommunicate the above mentioned incestuous man, and of course all others indulging in known sins. Suffice it to say neither that man nor any others were expelled on this occasion. Why, such was the effect of this letter, and Timothy’s preaching, and the ministry of Titus who followed, that, as we see in the second epistle, they all repented in sackcloth and ashes, good and bad down on their faces, for days and weeks mourning and crying to God for His mercy, turning the church into a Bochim of weeping; the incestuous man himself not only radically reforming and making things right as far as possible, but about to kill himself grieving, until Paul actually writes to them to stir up their Divine love in his behalf, and comfort him, “lest he may be swallowed up by excessive sorrow” (2Co 2:7).

Observe that Paul here tells them they are not to adjudicate the world, but to turn them all over to God and the Judgment Day; meanwhile they are to adjudge the church, expurgating everything which is out of harmony with the Word of God.

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

but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater [ Col_3:5 ], or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat . [Have no interchange of hospitality which would imply brotherly recognition, lest the church should thereby not only be disgraced, but corrupted-- 1Co_15:33 ]

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.

11. Now I have written unto you, etc. He now writes and explains his meaning. Church members must not have social intercourse with one who has been a member who is guilty of the grievous sins named. Covetous. A greedy person, under the influence of passions, not only greedy for gain, but for self-indulgence. The Greek word implies this. With such a one, no, not to eat. Either at the Lord's table, or in friendly meals, which would imply a brotherly recognition.

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 tells them how to treat believers in the church who refuse to be corrected for their involvement in sexual immorality and other obvious sins before others.

anyone who is called

"anyone who calls himself"

brother

Here this means a fellow Christian, either a man or a woman.

how am I involved with judging those who are outside the church?

Paul is emphasizing that he is not the one to judge people outside the church. This can also be stated in active form. AT: "I am not the one who should judge people who do not belong to the church" (See: Rhetorical Question)

are you not to judge those who are inside the church?

Paul is scolding the Corinthians. "you should know that you are the ones who should judge those who are inside the church" (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

brother

sexual immorality

false god

drunk

judge

church

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

11. ᾖ for the rec. ἤ has the sanction of the best editors.

11. ἔγραψα. Literally, I wrote, i. e. in the former Epistle.

ὀνομαζόμενος, i.e. as being so in name only.

ἅρπαξ. Latin rapax, a kindred word. Distinct from the covetous man in that he uses force rather than fraud to deprive men of their property.

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.

11. νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα] But my meaning was …;—‘but, the case being so, that ye must needs consort with fornicators among the heathen, I wrote to you, not to consort, &c.’

That this is the meaning and not ‘But now I write (the epistolary aorist), &c.,’ seems plain, from the use of ἔγραψα twice so close together, and therefore probably in the same reference,—from the fact noticed by Meyer, that if a contrast had been intended between ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ and νῦν, ἐν τῇ ἐπ. must have preceded ἔγραψα:—and from the usage of νῦν δέ, of which Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g. Plut. Protag. p. 347, νῦν δὲ σφόδρα γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ψευδόμενος δοκεῖς ἀληθῆ λέγειν, διὰ ταῦτά σε ἐγὼ ψέγω,—and Lycurg. Leocr. p. 138, ἐβουλόμην δʼ ἂν, ὦ ἄνδρες … νῦν δὲ … See also Heb 11:16. Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation,—that the Apostle had previously given a command, and now retracted it.

ἐάν τις] If one who is called a brother be, &c. Œcumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, al., join ὀνομαζόμενος with πόρνος, and understand it either as = ὀνομαστός, ‘be a notorious πόρνος, &c.,’ or ‘be named a πόρνος &c.’ But ὀνομαζόμ. or even ὀνομαστός, in the bad sense, is hardly admissible,—and in either case Paul would have written ἀδελφός τις, the stress on ἀδελφός in that case requiring it to precede τις, as it now precedes ὀνομαζόμενος.

εἰδωλολάτρης] One who from any motive makes a compromise with the habits of the heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices: Chrys. well remarks, προκαταβάλλεται τὸν περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων λόγον ὃν μετὰ ταῦτα μέλλει γυμνάζεσθαι.

μέθυσος was, in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 (but see Lobeck’s note), μέθυσος ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἐρεῖς, ἀλλὰ μεθυστικός· γυναῖκα δὲ ἐρεῖς μέθυσον κ. μεθύσην: and Pollux, vi. 25 (Wetst.), μέθυσος ἐπὶ ἀνδρῶν Μενάνδρῳ δεδόσθω.

Seeing that μηδὲ συνεσθίειν must imply a more complete separation than μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι, it cannot be applied to the ἀγάπαι (as Mosheim, al.), but must keep its general meaning,—not even to sit at table with such an one. This rule, as that in 2Th 3:14, regards only their private intercourse with the offending person: nothing is here said of public excommunication, though for some of these crimes it would be implied.

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

11. νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα. ‘But, as it is, I wrote’ (RV. marg.), not ‘But now I write’ (RV.). The latter is grammatically possible and makes good sense, but it is unlikely that ἔγραψα is in v. 9 historical, of an earlier letter, and here epistolary, of the present letter. The νῦν is logical, not temporal, ‘now you see,’ ‘now you understand’ that the earlier letter meant something different. Had the Apostle meant the νῦν to be temporal and the verb to refer to the present letter, he would have written γράφω, as in 4:14. He has stated what the earlier letter did not mean (οὐ πάντως), and he now very naturally states what it did mean.*

ἐάν …ᾖ. The form of protasis covers all cases that may come to light: see on 4:15. Almost all editors prefer ᾗ to ἤ to before πόρνος.

ὀνομαζόμενος. ‘Any who bears the name of a brother,’ though he has forfeited the right to it. He is called a brother, but he really is a πόρνος or, etc. Some early interpreters take ὀνομαζόμενος with what follows; ‘if any brother be called a whoremonger,’ or ‘be a notorious whoremonger.’ The latter would require ὀνομαστός, and we should have ἀδελφός τις rather than τις ἀδελφός. Evidently ἀδελφός and ὀνομαζόμενος are to be taken together. He is called a Christian, and he really is a disgrace to the name; that is a reason for shunning him. But if he is a Christian and is called some bad name, that is not a reason for shunning him: the bad name may be a slander.

πλεονέκτης. There is no good ground for supposing that, either here, or in v. 10, or anywhere else, πλεονέκτης means ‘sensual’ (see on Eph 4:19). The desire which it implies is the desire for possessions, greed, grasping after what does not belong to one.

εἰδωλολάτρης. Stanley would give this word also the meaning of ‘sensual.’ But there is no improbability in Corinthian converts being tainted with idolatry. Origen says that in his time the plea that idolatry was a matter of indifference was common among Christians serving in the army. Modern experience teaches that it is very difficult to extinguish idolatrous practices among converts, and Chrysostom may be right in suggesting that the Apostle inserts ‘idolater’ in his list as a preparation for what he is about to say on the subject (8:10, 10:7, 14 f.). The Corinthians were evidently very lax.

λοίδορος. Origen notes with what very evil people the λοίδορος is classed: ἡλίκοις κακοῖς τὸν λοίδορον συνηρίθμησεν. The word occurs 6:10, and in LXX in Proverbs and Ecclus., but nowhere else. Chrysostom (on 6:10) says that many in his day blamed the Apostle for putting λοίδοροι and μέθυσοι into such company. Mat 5:21, Mat 5:22; 1Pe 3:9.

μέθυσος. Rom 13:13. In Attic writers applied to women, men being called μεθυστικοί, παροινικοί, or παροίνιοι. Cf. ὀργὴ μεγάλη γυνὴ μέθυσος (Ecclus. 26:8); but elsewhere in LXX it is used of men (Ecclus. 21:1; Pro 23:21, Pro 26:9). It some μέθυσος and the λοίδορος are additions to the first list.

μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. An emphatic intimation of what he means by μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι. Cf. Luk 15:2; Gal 2:12. The Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which case the μηδέ would be quite out of place: he is thinking of social meals; ‘Do not invite him to your house or accept his invitations.’ But, as Theodoret points out, a prohibition of this kind would lead to the exclusion of the offender from the Lord’s Table. Great caution is required in applying the Apostle’s prohibition to modern circumstances, which are commonly not parallel. The object here, as in 2Jn 1:10, is twofold: to prevent the spread of evil, and to bring offenders to see the error of their ways. In any case, what St Paul adds in giving a similar injunction must not be forgotten; καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν (2Th 3:15). Clement of Rome (Cor. 14) says of the ringleaders of the schism, χρηστευσώμεθα αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν καὶ γλυκύτητα τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς, perhaps in reference to Mat 5:45, Mat 5:48.

νῦν (א3 A B D 3 E F G L P) rather than νυνί (א* C D* D 2 ): the more emphatic form might seem to be more suitable. Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Goth. support ᾗ against ἤ before πόρνος. For μηδέ, A has μή and F has μήτε.

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

Vv. 11. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one, no, not to eat.”

The words but now can only express a logical contrast. The νῦν contrasts Paul’s true thought, which remains, with his thought as it was disfigured by the Corinthians, which is relegated to the past. — The emphasis is on the words, who is called a brother; as Paul goes on to say in 1Co 5:12, he has not to exercise discipline on those who do not profess the faith. But when a man, who parades the title of Christian, exhibits this profession side by side with vice, the Church is bound to protest against this lying union, and with this view, so far as depends on it, to break off all relations with such a man. This is the way to tear from him the mask with which he covers himself to the shame of the Church and of Christ Himself.

The six following terms have been grouped, either in threes (Meyer) or in three pairs (Hofmann), with more or less ingenuity. It seems to me that, as in the enumeration Rom 1:29 seq., we have here rather an unstudied accumulation than a classification, strictly so called. It may be said that in such cases disgust excludes order. To the four terms of 1Co 5:10 Paul adds two new ones: λοίδορος, a man who speaks rudely, who calumniates, and μέθυσος, the intemperate man.

We have already shown that the not to company with indicates the rupture of private relations. But should not the last words, with such a man, no, not to eat, be applied to the rupture of the ecclesiastical relation by his exclusion from worship and from the Holy Supper? The word μηδέ, nay, no more, not even, does not allow this explanation of συνεσθίειν, to eat with. For this act is thus characterized as a matter of less gravity, and Paul could never so speak of the Holy Supper. Among the ancients, for a man to receive any at his table was much more a sign of intimacy than in our day; and the apostle is unwilling that by the sign of so close a personal relation the idea should be authorized that the vicious man is acknowledged by other Christians as worthy of the name. Meyer, indeed, admits that the phrase, no, not to eat with..., can only refer to the believer’s private table. But by an argument à fortiori, he concludes that it applies with still more certainty to the Holy Supper. Theodoret had already argued in the same way: “Not to eat, with stronger reason not to hold communion with him.” In such a matter it is dangerous to proceed by way of logical deduction. In arguing thus, account is not taken of this difference, that the table prepared in my house is my own, while the Holy Supper is the Lord’s Table. I am therefore responsible for those whom I admit to the former, but not for those who appear at the latter. It appears from 1Co 11:28-29, that the Lord thinks good to leave each one liberty to eat and drink his condemnation at the holy table, and will not prevent him from doing so by external means. The parable of the tares already suggested such a course, the only one in keeping with God’s regard for human liberty. The apostle justifies the distinction which he has just made between believers and unbelievers.

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.