Chapter V
The second evil in the chorch of Corinth, to which Paul directs his attention, is allowing a man guilty of incest to remain in its communion. He says it waa gencrsdly reported that fornication was tolerated among them, and even such fornication as was not heai’d of among the heathen, v. I. Ho reproves them for being inflated, instead of being humbled and penitent, and exoomiaunioating the offender, v. 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 goilty of incest to Satan, va, 3-5. He exhorts to purity, in language boiTOwed 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 Hebi’cws, so the Chi-istian’s life should be a pei-petual paschal feast, all malice and hypoci’isy being banished from the heai’ls and from the assemblies of believers, vs. 6-8, He corrects or guards against a raisapprehension of his command not to associate with the immoral. He shows that the command had reference to church communion, and not to social interconrsej and therefore was limited in its application to membere 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. vs 9-13.
1, It is reported coramonly (that there is) fornication among you, irnd such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Having dismissed the subject of the divisions in the churoh of Corinth, he takes up the case of the incestuous membei’ of that church, It is reported comrniordy (oAois QKoverai). This may mean what our translation expresses, viz., it was a matter cf notoriety that fornication existed among them, ‘OXtw may have the force of owiwmo, ‘nothing ia heard of among you except, ifec’ Or it may mean, ‘In general, foi-meation isueard of among you.’ That is, it was a common thing that fornication was heard of; implying that the offence, in different fonns, more or less prevailed. This is the less surpiising, conddering how little sins of that class were condemned among the heathen, and how notorious Coi-inth was for its licentiousneaa. To change the moral sentiments of a community is a difficult and gradual work. The New Testament iiirnishes sad eridence, that Jewish and Gentile converts brought into the chvirch many of the errora of their former belief and practice. The word fornication {iropveia.) is nsod in a comprehensive sense, includmg all violations of the seventh commandment-Ilcre a particular case is distinguished aa peculiaily atrocioua. The offence waa that a man had man-iedhis step-mother. His father’s wife is a Soriptui’al periphraae for step-mother, Lev. 18, 8. That it was a ease of mai-rise is to be inferred from the uniform use of the phrase to Jiave a woman in the New Testament, which always means, to many. Matt. 14, 4. 23, 26. 1 Cor, ?, 2. 29. Besides, although the connection continued, the offence is spoken of as past, vs, 2. 3. Such a Eiai-yiage Paul say a was unheard of among the Gentiles, that is, it was regai-ded by them with abhorrence. Cicero, o Gluent. 5, 6. speaks of such a coimcotion as an incredible crime, and as, with one exception, unheard of. It ia probable from 2 Cor. 7, 13, that the father of the offender was still alive. The crime, however, was not adultery, but inct; for otherwise the apostle would not have spoken of it as an unheard of cft’eiioe, and made the atrocity of it to arise out of the relation of the woman to the offender’s father. We have here therefore a dear 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 netir relatives, such marriages are not sins in the sight of God. To deny, therefore, the permanency of the law recorded in Lev. 18, is not only to go contrai-y to the authority of the apostle, bat also to teach that there is for Christians uo such crime as incest.
3. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
They were puffed up, i. e. elated with the conceit of their good estate, notwithstanding they were toleratmg in their communion a crime which even the heathen abhorred. Some have endeavoured to account for the ocouiTence of such an offence, and for the remissness of the church in relation to it, by supposing that both the offender and the church acted on the principle taught by many of the Jews, that all bonds of relationship were dissolved by conversion. The proselyte to Judiusm became a new creature. He received a new name. His father was no longer his father, or his mother his mother. The Babbina therefore taught that a proselyte might lawfully marry any of his nearest kindred. It is possible that such a notion may have partially prevailed among the Jewish portion of the church; but not very probable, 1. Because of its absurdity; 2. Because its prevalence among the Jews was only after their reprobation as a people; 3. Because the wiser class of the Jews themselves condemned it. It is more ]Drohable, if the crime was defended at all, it was on the prinaple that the Scriptures and nature condemn intennandageg on the ground only of consanguinity and not also of affinity. A principle opposed to Leviticus 18, and to what the apostle here
jirbd Aam not raiher mourned (eTrevqVare), i. e. grieved for yoarselves. Tour condition, instead of filling you with pride, should humble you and make you sad. 27^ {’’’’”)i “fit 30 that, but in order that, as expressing the design which the apostle contemplatedin their humiliation and sorrow, Comp. John 11, 15, ‘I would that ye were grieved and sorry for yourselves, in order that he who had done this deed might be taken away.’ The tva may depend on a word implied. ‘Ye have not monmed, desiring that, &c.’ Chrysostom says the idea is, that they should have acted as they would have done had a pestilence appeared among them which called for 1 and supplication in order that it might be removed. It is a light inherent in every society, and neeessaiy for its existence, to judge of the quaJification of its own members; to receive those whom it judges worthy, and to exclude tho unworthy. This right is here clearly recognized as belonging to the church. It ia also clear fi-om this passage that this light belongs to eaoli particwlar church or congregation. The power was vested in the churfi of Corinth, and not in some officer presiding over that church. The bishop or pastor was not reproved for neglect of discipline; but the church itself, in its organized capacity.
3-5. 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, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
These verses constitute one sentence, and must be taien together in order to be understood. The construction of the principal clauses is plain. Paul says, ‘I have determined to deliver this man unto Satan.’ All the rest is subordinate and circumstantial. The connection of the subordinate clauses is doubtful. Perhaps the best interpretation of the whole passage is the following: ‘I, though absent as to the body, yet present as to the spirit, have determined as though present, in the name of the Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit being with von, with the power (i. e. clothed or armed with the power) of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver this man to Satan,’ There was to be a meeting of the olmrch, where Paul, spiiitually present, would, in the name of Christ, and in the exercise of the miraculous power with which he was invested, deliver the offender to the power of Satan. The connection with what precedes is indicated by the particle Jbr, ‘I would ye were in a state of mind to remove this offender, Jbr I have determined to cut him off.’ I v&rily (fv), or I at least. ‘Whatever you do or leave undone, I at least will do my duty.’ Absent in body, hut present in spirit. Neither Paul’s capacity nor Ms authority to judge, nor his power to execute Lis judgment, depended on his bodily presence. Ha was present in spii-it. This does not mean simply that he was present in mind, as thinking of them and interested in their ■wel&i’e; but it was a presence of knowledge, authority, and power. Save judged akeady. That is, without waiting either for your decision in the matter, or imtil I can be personally present with you.
Sim that hath so done this deed. This is one of the claases, the construction of which is doubtful. Our translators insert the word concerning, which has nothios to answer to it in the text, nnlesa it be considered a part of the translation of the
E receding verb, (KeKpaca,) I have judged concerning, i. e. ‘1 ave judged or passed sentence upon Lim.’ This, however, creates embarrassment in the explanation of the fifth verse. The best explanation is to make this clause the object of the Yerb to deliver, in v. 5, ‘I have already determined to deliver him who did this deed.’ As, howevei-, so much intervenes between the object and the verb, the object {such an one) ia repeated in v, 5.
In the name of Christ, means by the authority of Chi-iat, acting as his representative. The phrase hicludes, on the one hand, the denial that the thing done was done in viitne of his own authority; and on the other, the chim of the right to act as the organ and agent of Christ. This clause may be connected with what follows. ‘Ye being gathered m the name of Christ.’ Against this consti uction, however, it may be m-ged, 1. That the words would m that case most natni illy have been differently placed. That i**, it would be moio natural to aay; ‘Assembled in the name ot Ch list,’ than ‘In the name of Chiist assembled.’ 2. It ia a common formula for e.’cpressing apostolical authority, to say, ‘In the name of Christ.’ 3. The sense and parallelism of the clauses are better if these words are connected with the main verb, ‘I have determined in the name of Christ to deliver,’ »feo. Paul was acting in the consciousness of the authority received from Christ. Compare 2 Thess. 3, 6. Acts 16, 18. When ye are gathered togeth&; and my spirits The church was to be convened, and Paul spiritually present. The sentence was not to be passed or executed in secret, but openly. It was to have the solemnity of a judicial proceeding, and, therefore, the people were convened, though they were merely spectators. With the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. This may be connected with the immediately preceding words, ‘My spirit invested with the poTver of Christ “being present.’ Or with what follows, ‘I have determined to deliver such an one with the power of Christ to Satan,’ The sense is substantially the same. The senteaee was to he passed aad carried into effect in the name of Christ and by his power,
2b deliver suoh an one unto Satan. There have from the earliest times been two prevalent interpretations of this expression. According to one view, it means simply excommunication; according to the other, it includes a miraculoud subjection of the person to the power of Satan. Those who regard it as merely excomnmnioation, say that” to deliver to
neglected to excommunicate this offender, and Paul says he lia<l determined to do it. Besides, it is argued that exoonimunication is properly expressed by the phrase “to deliver to Satan,” becaase, as the world is the kingdom of Satan, to ta’Jt a man out of the church, wa3 to cast him from the kingdom of Christ into the kingdom of Satan. Comp. Col. 1, 13. In favour of the idea of something more than excommunication, it may be argued, 1. That it is clearly revealed in scripture, that bodily evils are often inflicted on men by the agency of Satan. 2. That the apostles were invested with the power of miraculously inflicting such evils, Acts 5, 1-11. 13, 9-11. 2 Cor. 10, 8. 13, 10. 3. That in 1 Tim. 1, 20, the same formula occurs probably in the same sense. Paul there say, he had delivered Plymeneas and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. 4. Thei’e 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 Paul’s readers in that sense. 5. Excommunication would not have the effect of destroying the flesh, in the sense in wliioh that expression is used in the following clause. Most commentators, therefore, agree in understanding the apostle to threaten the infliction of some bodily evil, when he speaks of delivering this offender to Satan, thr Ihe destnto-Hon of the Jlesh. This is by many understood to mean, for the destruction of his corrupt natui-e, so that the end contemplated is merely a moral one. But as fiesh here stands opposed to spirit, it most naturally means the body. ‘The man was delivered to Satan that his body might be afflicted, in order that his soul might be saved,’ In the day of the Lord Jesus. That is, the day when the Lord Jesus shall come the second time without sia unto salvation. It appears from 2 Cor. 7, 8-12, that this solemn exercise of the judicial power of the apostle, had its appropriate effect. It led the ofl’ender himself and the whole church, to sincere and deep repentance.
6. YouT glorying (is) not good. Know ye not
that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump P
Yov/e ioasting, (KaiT^ij/ia,) ground of boasting. You have no good reason to boast of your religious state; on the contraiy, you have ahundant reason to be alarmed. Know ye not; do ye not consider the obvious and certain danger of this evil spreading? A Utile leaven leaveneth the whole lump. This proverbial expression is not here intended to espre the idea that one corrupt member of the church depraves the whole, because, in the following verses, in which the figure is carried out, the leaven is not a person, but sin. The idea, therefore, is, that it is the nature of evil to diffuse itself. This is true with regard to individuals and communities. A single sin, however secret, when indulged, diffuses its corrupting influence over the whole soul; it deprayes the conscience; it ahenates from God; it strengthens all other principles of evil, while it destroys the efficacjr of the means of grace and the disposition to use them. It is no less true of any community, that any one tolerated evil deteriorates its whole moral sense.
7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. Por even Christ our paSBOver is sacrificed for us:
Purge out the old leaven is an exhortation to pui-ity, as the old leaTen is aflerwai-ds said to be malice ana wickedness. This leaven is add to be old, because in the present apostate state of our nature, what is old is evil. Hence, the old man is a scriptural designation of our corrupt nature. That ye may be a new lump. New, i, e, pui’e — as the new man is the renewed nature. A.S ye are v/rdeavened. Leaven in this connection is a flgui-ative expression for sin. To say, therefore, that they were unleavened, is to say that they were. holy. This was their normal state — as Chnstiana. A Chiistian is a new or holy man. The argument, therefore, is drawn from the acknowledged fact that Christians, as such, are holy. Purge out the leaven of wickedness, hat ye may be pure, for believers are holj’.’ For even, (xai ydp,) or, /or aao. This is a second reason wby they should be pure; for Christ our jjossover is slain for us. Js slain, rather, ia sacrificed, as Sim means to kill and offer in sata-ifice, or, to slay as a victim. When the paschal lamb ivaa slain, the Hebrews were lequived to purge out all leaven from their houses. Ex, 12, 15. The death of Christ imposes a similar obligation on na to purge oat the leaven of sin, Christ is our passover, not because he was slain on the day on which the paschai lamb was oft’ered, but because he does for us what the paschal lamb did for the Hebrews. As the blood of that lamb sprinkled on the door-posta secured exemption from the stroke of the destroying angel, so the blood of ChiTst secures exemption from the stroke of divine justice, Clii’iat was shin for its, in the same sense that the passover was slain for the Hebrews, It was a vicarious death. As Christ died to redeem us from all iniquity, it is not only contrary to the design of his death, but a proof that we are not interested in its benefits, if we live in sin. Our passover, viz., Christ. The words virip tjiimv, {for us), are omitted in all the older manuscripts, and are not necessaiy to the sense.
8, Therefore let us keep the feast, not mth old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and mckedness; but with the unleavened (bread) of sincerity and trath.
Let us therore keep the feast. That is, since our passover Christ is slam, let us keep the feast. This is not an exhortation to keep the Jewish passover — because the whole contest is figurative, and because the death of Christ is no reason why 3ie Corinthians should keep the Jewish passover. Christians are nowhere exhorted to observe the festivals of the old dispensation. Neither is the feast referred to the Lord’s Supper, There is nothing in the connection to suggest a reference to that ordinance. A feast was a portion of time consecrated to God, To keep the feast means, ‘Let your whole lives be as a sacred festival, i. e, consecrated to God.’ As a feast lasting seven days was connected with the slaymg of the pascial lamb; so a life of consecration to God should be connected with the death of our passover — Chi-ist, This feast is not to be celebrated with the old or corrupt leaven, which is expired to mean the leaven of malice and wickedness. Ilonjpia, wickedness, is a stronger word than KaKui badness. Anj one who does wi’ong is Kands, ladi but lio who does evil with delight and with persistency, is wonjpos. Hence Satan ia called 6 n-onjpds, “The evil one,” -Bw( toith the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Sincerity and truth are the unleavened bread with which the Christian’s life-long feast should be celebrated. Sincerity, (tlKiKplvtia,) is purity, transparent clearness; something through which the sun may shine without revealing any flaw. Truth is in scriip ture far more than veracity. In its subjective sense, it means that inward state which answei-s to the truth; that moral condition which is conformed to the law and character of God.
9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company
with fornicators:
This may be understood to refer to what he had written above in this epistle, Comp. Rom. 16, 22. 1 Thess. 6, 27. Col. 4, 16, where the epistle, hriaroX^, means the epistle he was then writing. Calvin, Beza, and almost all the modern commentators, miderstand it to refer to an epistle no longer extant. This is obviously the more natural interpretation, fli-st, because the words (iv Tij eVurroAjj), in the epistle, would otherwise be altogether unnecessary. And, secondly, because this epistle does not contain the general direction not to com.-
tiany with foruicatovs; which, it would seem from what folows, the Corinthians had misunderstood. There is, indeed, a natural indisposition in Christians to admit that any of the inspired writings are lost. But nothing is more natural than the assumption that the apostles wrote many short letters, not intended as pastoral epistles designed for the church in all Res, bat simply to answer some question, or to give some direction relative to the peculiar circumstances of some individual or congregation. ‘I wrote to yon in the epistle,’ naturally means here as in 2 Cor. 7, 8, the epistle which yon have already received, and not the one which he was then writing; and it ia not wise to depai’t from the natural meaning of the words simply to avoid a conclusion we are imwilling to admit. The church has all the inspired writmga which God designed for her edification; and we should be therewith content. Not to company with, (la trutavo/iiyvuo-^ai), not to be mixed up together with. That is, not to associate with. See 2 Thess. 8, 14. This may have I’eference either to social in-I. COUIKTHIAHS 5, 9.10. 80
tercourse or to clmrcli communion. This indefinite command Paul explsuns, fii’st, by stating that he did not mean to forbid social intercourse; and then saying he did intend to proMlDit Christian fellowship with the -wicked.
10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortionera, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. N’ot altogetk&r. This limits the prohibition. The apostie (lid not intend to prohibit all intercourse with the fornicators of this world. This would be an impossibility; while in the world we must have more or less intercourse with the men of the world. Or, the words (ou ircfvnus), not altogether, may be connected with the words Jwrote,m the sense oi by no means. Comp, Bom. 3, 0. ‘I Sy no means wrote to yon not to associate with the wicked,’ This, although perhaps the more common explanation, does not give so good a sense. It is not so maoh a positive denial of having so written, as a limitation of the application of his command, that the apostle designs to give. The world means manldnd as distinguished from the church, Gal. 4, 3, Eph, 2, 2, Col. 2, 8, The prohibition, such as it was, was not limited to any one class of the immoral; it included all classes. The covetous; those who will have more (TrA.eoi’eKrvjs); and especially those who defraud for the sake or gain. In the Scriptures the controlling love of gain ia spoken of as a sin, specially heinous in the sight of God. It is called idolatry, Eph. 6, 5, because wealth becomes the object supremely loved and sought. The man, therefore, who saciilices duty to the acquisition of wealth; who makes gain the great object of his pursuit, is a covetous man. He cannot be a Christian, and should not, according to the apostle, bo recognized as such.
Or with extortioners, i. e. the ravenous; those who exact what is not justly duo to them, or more than is justly due. The sin is not confined to exactions by force or open robbery, but to all nndue exactions. The man who takes advantage of another’s poverty, or of his necessities, to secure exorbitant gain, is an extortioner. Or with idolaters, those who either jprofessedly worship fiilse gods, or who do what, in its own natare, and in the common judgment of men, amounts to such -orahip. This is said to be the earliest known instance of the use of the woj’d «18(oloXaipijs; it is never used in the LXX, although ii&oXov is constantly employed in that version in the sense of false gods. For then ye rmi&t needs go out of the world. This is the reason why the apostle did not prohibit” ’ ...-.-. y should have to seek
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 {yw Se). 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, &c.’ 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 wnte this, bat I wrote, i. e. I meant, this.’ This explanation best salts the context, and agrees better with the force of the tense (eypaa) here used; for although the aorist of this verb is used ia 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 drunkaxd, 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 aumption that the offences here referred to are tolerated by the gospel. It may appear Strang that Paul should assume that any one calling himself a Chi-istian could be an idolater. By idolatry, however, he understands not merely the intentional and con-SMona worship of felse gods, bat 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 Lord’s supper is an act of Christian worship. And yet some of the Corinthians did not hesitate to eat of heathen sacrifices under those circumstances, 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 Lord’s supper, which is never designated as a meal. The moaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any way as a Chriatian, even by eating with Mm. It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord eat with publicans and sinners, but he did not tlierehy recognize them aa 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 tlifi sentence of excommunication pronoimeed by the church, denial of all social interconrse with the excommunicated, ‘he command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea tor the tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the church.
12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without p do not ye judge them that are within P
Those without; those out of the church. Mark 4, II. Col. ‘1, 5, 1 Thess. 4, 12. The command of the apostle had reference only to those within the church, /iw it was not his prerogative to judge those that are without. The Corinthians acted on the same pi-inciple. They confined church discipline to church members, and therefore should not have understood his injunction not to company with the wicked to apply to others than to those within the church.
13. But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked pci’son.
God, and not the church, is the jadge of those who are without. The verb may be accented so as to express either the present or the future. God judges (KpiVei); or, God will Judge (Kptvtt). The present gives the better sense, as expressing the divine prerogative, and not merely the assurance of a future judgment. Therefore put away, literally, according to the common text (Nat eapetre), and ye shall put away; which Bcems to have been borrowed from Deut. 24, 7. The better reading is {iapar put away. It is a simple imperative injunction, or necessary application of the piinciplc of Christian
conimtiTiion just laii down. This passage is not inconsistent with the interpretation given to verses 3-5. In consequenoo of their neglect of duty, Paul determined to deliver the iticestuous member of the Corinthian church to Satan, He calls upoD them to recognize the validity of that sentence, and to cany it into effect. The sentenco was pronoimoed; they, so far as it involved their communion, were to execute it.