Sanctification by the Holy Spirit In 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul takes the greater part of this epistle to teach them about the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, the ways in which these issues are presented reflect the sanctification of man’s mind, body, and spirit, in that order. For example, Paul’s discussion on church divisions (1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21) emphasizes the sanctification of our minds so that we learn not to prefer one church member, or church leader, above another. His discussion on fornication (1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40) emphasizes the sanctification of our bodies, as we offer them as holy vessels to the Lord. His discussion on meats offered until idols (1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1) emphasizes the sanctification of our spirits as we learn to walk and conduct our lifestyles with a clean conscience, which is the voice of the spirit. Paul then turns his attention to issues regarding public worship (1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40). Remember in the Old Testament how the priests and Levites had to sanctify themselves before entering into the service of the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore, Paul uses this same approach for the New Testament Church. As we allow our minds, bodies and spirits to yield to the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we become vessels in which the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit can operate.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Divisions in the Church 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21

2. Fornication in the Church 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 6:20

3. Idolatry and foods offered to idols 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:34

4. Public Worship 1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40

The Two Issues of Fornication and Foods Offered Unto Idols Reflect Heathen Worship Note that the two major topics that are covered in this epistle of 1 Corinthians, fornication and meat offered to idols, are two of the four issues that those the Jerusalem council decided to ask of the Gentiles. Note:

Act 15:20, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Act 15:29, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Act 21:25, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

In submission to the church apostles and elders a Jerusalem, Paul delivered these ordinances to the Corinthian church earlier while he lived there. In this epistle, Paul expands upon them:

1Co 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”

Note also that Jesus told the church in Pergamos in the book of Revelation that these were the two doctrines of Balaam.

Rev 2:14, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication .”

Therefore, the practice of feasting in idolatry and fornication appears to have been a common practice in Asia Minor among the temple worship of the Greeks. We also see in Rom 1:18-32 how idolatry was followed by fornication as God turned mankind over to a reprobate mind. Thus, these two sins are associated with one another throughout the Scriptures. However, first Paul deals with church divisions.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Fornication: Sanctification of the Body to Become a Holy Vessel ( 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40 ) – In 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40 Paul deals with the topic of fornication in the church at Corinth, which emphasizes the sanctification of the flesh. The key word in this passage of Scripture is “fornication,” which family of words is used twelve times in this passage of Scripture: 5 times ( 1Co 5:1 ; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 6:18; 1Co 7:2), 1 time (1Co 6:18), 2 times (1Co 6:15-16) 4 times (1Co 5:9-11; 1Co 6:9). Paul has heard about these problems within this church from reliable sources. Paul relied upon reliable sources in order to deal with these issues (1Co 1:11; 1Co 5:1).

1Co 1:11, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.”

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 father’s wife.”

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Paul Passes Judgment in the Church 1Co 5:1-13

2. Paul Gives the Corinthians their Basis for Judging Among Themselves 1Co 6:1-11

3. Why Fornication Must be Judged 1Co 6:12-20

4. Marriage in the Church 1Co 7:1-40

Comments on Section Breaks – In 1Co 7:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul answers a number of questions that were probably handed to him by the visiting delegate from the church at Corinth. He begins his discussion on each of these topics with the same phrase, “Now concerning…” (1Co 7:1, 1Co 8:1, 1Co 12:1) Therefore, many scholars divide 1Co 7:1 to 1Co 14:40 into a new section because of their common introductions. However, creating such a major division at 1Co 7:1 breaks the flow of Paul’s lengthy discussion on fornication, as well as the structural presentation on the sanctification of the three-fold man; spirit, soul and body.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

1Co 5:1-8

Excommunication of an incestuous offender.

1Co 5:1

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 caseunheard 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 (), but the periphrasis might remind some of the heinousness of the sin, and of Lev 18:8.

1Co 5:2

And ye are puffed up; perhaps rather, And have ye been puffed up? The “ye,” being expressed m the Greek, is emphatic”ye, the very persons whose horror ought to have been most intense.” It might seem inconceivable that any community calling itself Christian would fall so low as to be puffed up at the existence of such an offence among them. There is, indeed, a subtle and close connection between arrogance and sensuality, and beth are sometimes fatally linked to the conceit of religious knowledge without the reality. But not even a heathen community could have been “puffed up” on such grounds. Yet the Corinthians may have been “puffed up” with the conceited reasons which induced them to leave the offence unrebuked, because they boasted the possession of some spurious “knowledge.” Perhaps they bad seized some deadly notion of antinomian liberty, such as has existed at times among Gnostic sects, like the Ophites in ancient and the Anabaptists in modern days. Perhaps they sheltered themselves under the arrogant Jewish rule that all a man’s conditions of life were altered by becoming a proselytethat old relationships were for him entirely abolished; for the Jews held that a prosolyte was like “a newborn child,” and had begun life a second time (Bechoroth, f. 47, 1), and might marry any of his relatives. Such miserable sophisms would acquire fresh force from the universal impurity with which Corinthian society was stained, and which rendered it necessary for St. Paul in these Epistles to utter his most solemn warnings against every kind of sensuality (1Co 5:11; 1Co 6:15-18; 1Co 10:8; 1Co 15:1-58 :83, 34; 2Co 5:11, etc.). But besides all this, St. Paul’s remark does not necessarily mean that their “inflation” was exclusively connected with Gnostic excesses, which bore on the ease of this offender. It may mean, “Here is a gross fault in the midst of you, and yetnot propter hoc, but cum hocthe characteristic of your religious factions is pride and conceit.” This was indeed , “to play the Corinthian,” in the worst sense, of that proverbial taunt. Possibly the prominence or wealth of the offender may have led to a more easy condonation of his crime. Exculpatory sophism may have been suggested by self interest. That; i.e. in order that, as a result of your godly sorrow, the offender might be removed from your midst. He that hath done this deed. The language of St. Paul, as always, is as delicate as clearness would allow. The fact that the verb is in the past aorist may perhaps allow us to hope that the offence, at any rate in its most aggravated forms, had ceased to be committed. The manner of the crime (“in such a way”) seems to have been an aggravation of the crime itself. In this indignant verse we have, as Stanley says, “the burst of the storm, the mutterings of which had been heard in the earlier chapters.” So intense was the effect produced by St. Paul’s stern severity, that a great part of the Second Epistle had to be devoted to allaying the agitation which these words had excited (see especially 2Co 7:8-12).

1Co 5:3

For I verily. The broken structure of the verse shows the deep emotion with which it was pennedas it were with sobs. St. Paul contrasts the line which he means to take with the lax condonation granted by the Corinthian Church. As absent; rather, being absent or though absent. The as is omitted in the best manuscripts. But present in spirit; literally, in the spirit;’ but he is referring to his own spirit: “Bodily I am absent; but speaking as though my spirit were present in your assembly [comp. 2Ki 5:26], I have already judged,” etc. Have judged already. My decision was instantaneous and is final. As though I were present. My sentence is as clear as though I were at this moment standing in the midst of you. That hath so done. The verb is not as before, poiesas, but katergasamenon, which is stronger, “the perpetrator of this deed.” The “so” means “with all these circumstances of aggravation.” The same verb is used in Rom 1:27. The broken periods of the Greek reflect the emotion of the writer. The passage is as it were written with sobs (Wordsworth).

1Co 5:4

In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word “Christ” is probably an addition. The clause may either be taken with “when ye are gathered together,” or with “to deliver”. With the power of our Lord Jesus. Each clause adds solemnity to the scene in which St. Paul imagines himself as standing with them in the spirit, and joining with the assembly of the Church, and armed with the authority of Christ, while he pronounces on the offender the sentence on which he had already determined. That he could claim “the power of the Lord” resulted from his possession of the Holy Spirit. and the special commission to bind and to loose, to remit and to retain, on earth, which Christ had entrusted to the apostles (Mat 18:18, Mat 18:20; Joh 20:23).

1Co 5:5

To deliver such a one unto Satan. Scripture nowhere defines the character and limits of such a sentence as this. By cutting off an offender from Church communion (2Th 3:14, 2Th 3:15), that is, from all the visible means of grace, he was for the time separated from spiritual influences, and was, therefore, so far handed over to Satan. The phrase is also applied to Hymenaeus and Alexander, in 1Ti 1:20. It is very doubtful whether it was necessarily meant to involve such physical inflictions as fell on Ananias, Sapphira, or Elymas. It is, however, important to observe that the intention of the sentence, like the true intention of excommunication, when exercised in a right spirit (see Hooker, ‘Eccl. Pol.,’ Ecc 3:1, 13), was not wrathful, but merciful. It was, as Calvin says, “medicinale remedium””not for destruction, but for edification” (2Co 10:8). Hymenaeus and Alexander were handed to Satan, not for their final ruin and damnation, but with a kind and remedial purpose, “that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1Ti 1:20), and this offender with the express object ‘, that his spirit may be saved.” Had these facts been more deeply studied, there would have been a very different tone and spirit in many of the mediaeval anathemas. Such a one. He seems to hold aloof from the man’s very name. So “such as she” ( ) is used of the adulteress in Joh 8:7. For the destruction of the flesh; i.e. that all carnal influences in him might be destroyed. It is not his “body” which is to be destroyed, but the , “flesh,” the jetzer hara, or “evil impulse,” as the Jews called it. When this was destroyed, the body might once more become a temple of the Holy Ghost. That the spirit may be saved. The destruction of the lowest element of our human nature is the salvation of the highest; it is the cutting away of the dead corpse from the living soul. In the day of the Lord; when the Lord should judge the quick and the dead. The merciful intention of St. Paul is clearly developed in 2Co 2:6-11. He looked on God’s judgments as remedial, not as solely retributive (1Co 11:29-32). Here, as Chrysostom finely says, the apostle lays down, as it were, his laws to the devil, telling him how far, and how far only, he can proceed. The object of excommunication is to save the offender, and not to do the devil’s work by ensuring his eternal ruin. We can imagine how awful would be the solemnity of these words when they were first read aloud to the little Christian communities of Corinth. It was natural that they should produce an overwhelming excitement.

1Co 5:6

Your glorying; rather, the subject of your boasting, the point on which you glorify yourselves. The Greek word does not mean the act of boasting, but the thing of which we boast. Not good. The Greek word is not agathon, but kalon, an almost untranslatable word, which implies all moral beauty, and resembles the English word “fair” or “noble.” When he says that it is “not good,” he uses the figure called litotes; i.e. he employs an expression intentionally too weak, that it may be corrected into a stronger one by the involuntary indignation of the reader; as when Virgil calls the cannibal tyrant Busiris “unpraised.” Hence the clause is equivalent to “the thing of which you are boasting is detestable.” Know ye not. This clause is used by St. Paul in specially solemn appeals, and almost exclusively in these Epistles (1Co 3:16; 1Co 6:16, 1Co 6:19; 1Co 9:13, 1Co 9:24). A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (Gal 5:9). The taint alluded to is not only the presence of the unpunished offender, but the general laxity and impurity displayed by their whole bearing in the matter (comp. the line of Menander quoted in 1Co 15:33, and the “root of bitterness” in Heb 12:15). (For the word “lump,” see Rom 11:16.)

1Co 5:7

Purge out therefore. The word “therefore” is absent from the best manuscripts, and the abruptness is more emphatic without it. No doubt the metaphor was suggested by the fact that St. Paul was writing about the time of the Passover (Act 16:8). The most essential requisite of the Jewish regulations, with which his whole training had made him so familiar, was the absolute putting away, and even destruction, of every trace of leaven, which was diligently sought for the day before the Passover began. The putting away of leaven was a type of sanctification. The old leaven. “Old” as belonging to their unregenerate and unconverted condition; a remnant of the day when they had been Gentiles and Jews who had not known Christ. The least willing tolerance of the taint would cause it to work throughout the whole society. As ye are unleavened. Leaven is the type of evil in its secret and corrupting workings. Ideally, Christians can only be addressed as “unleavened,” i.e. as “purged from their own old sins” (2Pe 1:9); and it is the method of Scripture (indeed, it is the only possible method) to address Christians as being Christians indeed, and therefore in their ideal rather than their actual character. Some have taken these words to mean, “You are actually keeping the Passover, and therefore have no leaven among you;” but

(1) the words cannot bear this meaning; nor

(2) was St. Paul likely to appeal so prominently to a Jewish ordinance; and

(3) he is thinking of the Christian Easter, and only borrowing a casual illustration from the Jewish Passover. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; rather, in the true reading, for our passover also was sacrificedeven Christ. As Christians, the Gentile Corinthians certainly did not keep the Jewish Passover; but St. Paul reminds them that they too had a Passoverthat for them, too a Paschal Victim had been offered, whose sacrificial blood had been shed for their redemption (Joh 1:29; Joh 19:36; 1Pe 1:19). (Comp. Heb 13:10, “We have an altar.”)

1Co 5:8

Therefore let us keep the feast. Let us keep the Christian feast of Christ’s resurrection in that spirit of holinessof purging away sin from the midst of uswhich was symbolized by the Jewish removal of leaven. Not with old leaven. For now ye are “in Christ,” and, therefore, are a “new creation.” Leaven is the type of hypocrisy (Luk 12:1) in its secret workings, but more generally it is a type of every corrupting influence. Of sincerity and truth. “All that corresponds to an unsullied, uncontaminated, and genuine Christian character.” The beautiful Greek word for “sincerity” means freedom from all admixture. It is, perhaps, derived from “testing in the sunshine,” and is used by St. Paul in 2Co 1:12; 2Co 2:17. “Truth” means “reality.”

1Co 5:9-13

Correction of a mistaken inference which they had deduced from a former letter of St. Paul’s.

1Co 5:9

In an Epistle; rather, in the Epistle; in some former letter to the Church, which is no longer extant. The attempt to get rid of so plain a statement, in the supposed interests of some superstitious notion that every line which an apostle wrote to a Church must necessarily have been inspired and infallible, is at once unscriptural and grossly superstitious. The notion that “the Epistle” intended is this Epistle is an absurdity invented in the interests of the same fiction. The only hypothesis which could give the least plausibility to such a view is that which makes this paragraph a postscript or marginal addition after the letter was finished; but there is little or nothing in favour of such a view. Not to company with. The Greek word is rather stronger: not to be mingled up among. The spirit of the injunction is repeated in Eph 5:11, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

1Co 5:10

Yet not altogether. The words correct a false inference, and mean, “I did not intend absolutely to prohibit all communication with Gentiles guilty of this sin under all circumstances.” Of this world. Those outside the pale of the Christian Church. Or with the covetous. St. Paul often uses the Greek word in immediate connection with sins of impurity (1Co 6:10; 2Co 9:5; Eph 5:3; Col 3:3), and, though it does not exclude the connotation of greed and avarice (2Co 9:7; 1Th 2:5), it seems to have been used euphemistically of the deadliest form of heathen sensuality. The principle of selfishness may work equally in greed and in lust. Extortioners. The word may also mean “ravishers,” but there is no reason to abandon the sense of “rapacious.” Idolaters. This is the earliest instance of the use of this word, which does not occur in the LXX. No Christian could still be an open “idolater.” So, unless we suppose that the expression has slipped in involuntarily, we must here give the word a metaphorical sense, as in Col 3:5. We must else be driven to suppose that there were some half and half Christians, like Constantine, who “feared the Lord, and served their own gods”. For then must ye needs go out of the world; for in that case (as they had perhaps implied in their letter of questions to St. Paul) ye would have been morally bound to leave the world altogether and seek a new one. The Greek particle ara perhaps refers to the astonishment caused by their misapprehension of St. Paul’s rule. The clause throws painful light on the condition of the heathen world. If all communication with “fornicators” was to be forbidden, the sin was so universal, especially at Corinth, that all intercourse with Gentiles would have be. come impossible. Even some who professed to be stern moralists among the heathen, like Cato and Cicero, looked on the sin as being, at the worst, quite venial, and even, under certain circumstances, commendable.

1Co 5:11

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; Gal 5:20; 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.”

1Co 5:12

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? To pass sentence on heathens is no concern of mine; it is no part of my office. The phrase “them that are without” was originally a Jewish phrase. To the Jews all men were outsiders (chitsonin) except themselves. The phrase was adopted by Christians, but in a less contemptuous sense (1Th 4:12; Col 4:5). We find a description of “those that were without””aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise”in Eph 2:12. Do not ye judge them that are within! An appeal to their own practice and to common sense. Christian rules can, of course, only apply to Christian communities.

1Co 5:13

God judgeth. To that “judgment of God” (Rom 1:29) Christians must leave them. They have no jurisdiction over them. The mention of “judging” forms a natural transition to the next chapter. Therefore. The word is omitted in the best manuscripts. The command is more abruptly forcible without it. Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. The command would come the more powerfully because it is a direct reference to the language of Deu 17:7; Deu 24:7. The explanation, “Put away the evil one [i.e. the devil] from among you!” is adopted by Calvin, but is too general.

HOMILETICS

1Co 5:1-5

The socially immoral in Churches.

“It 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 wifenot, 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 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.

2. 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 bedeliver 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 reformativeshould be inflicted to correct, not to crush. “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one.”

1Co 5:6-13

The true Church a feast.

“Your glorying is not good,” etc. There are numerous Churches, but only one true Church, viz. that community of men who possess the Spirit and exemplify the character of Jesus Christ. These verses lead us to look upon the true Church

I. In its INTERNAL ENJOYMENTS. It is called here a “feast.” Truly the association of such Christly spirited men is a “feast” of the sublimest kind, a feast to each and all. A “feast:”

1. Because it contains the choicest elements for spiritual nourishment. The quickening, elevating, and suggestive ideas current in such fellowship, current, not only in language, but in looks, and bearing, and acts, and spirit, constitute the soul banquet, a “feast of fat things,” etc.

2. Because it contains the choicest elements for spiritual gratification. A feast implies not merely nourishment, but pleasure and delight. What is a higher delight than the loving intercourse of kindred souls, free interchange of the most lofty thoughts and purest sympathies, loving souls flowing and reflowing into each other? The true Church is not a moody, melancholy assemblage, speaking in sepulchral tones, and singing doleful dirges; it is the brightest and most jubilant fellowship on earth. “These words have I spoken unto you, that your joy may be full; Rejoice,… and again I say, rejoice.”

II. In its EXTERNAL RELATION TO THE UNGODLY.

1. There is a connection with ungodly men that it must avoid. They must not be admitted to its “feasts.” “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” As the Jews put away leaven at the celebration of the Passover, so all corrupt men must be excluded from the Church feasts. Christ is its Passover, its Feast. It is suggested that the presence of corrupt men at the feast would be contagious. It would be likely to act as “leaven” through the community. As leaven kneaded into a lump of dough spreads from particle to particle, ferments in its process, spreads through the whole, and assimilates all to its own character, so a bad man’s spirit may work through the community of the good. Therefore, because it is so contagious and pernicious, exclude it. “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” No Church that has such leaven in it, whatever its intellectual, social, or spiritual advantages, has any reason for exultation. “Your glorying is not good,” says Paul: “know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?’ Be grave, be serious, look well to the moral character of your members.

2. There is a connection with ungodly men that it cannot avoid. “I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.” You cannot avoid contact and some kind of intercourse with the ungodly men outside. You cannot attend to the temporal affairs of your life without them. Nor can you discharge your spiritual obligations without going amongst them. As a Christian you are bound to go amongst them, to correct their mistakes, to enlighten their darkness, to reprove their wrongs, and to endeavour to “turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” Over such you have no legal control, you can exercise no jurisdiction; they are without. You have no power to exclude them from your neighbourhood or your country; they are to be left alone in that respect. “Them that are without God judgeth.” But if you find such characters inside the Church, you are to deal with them. “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 a one no not to eat.” Observe here:

(1) Sin in man takes various forms. Paul adds to the incestuous man, the “fornicator,” the “covetous” man, the “idolater,” the “railer,” the “drunkard,” the “extortioner;” all have to be avoided. Sin is to be avoided whatever form it takes; and it takes many forms. What is a temptation to one man is not to another. Hence one is tempted to be a “fornicator;” another a miser, “covetous;” another an “idolater,” worshipping false gods; another a scorner, a “railer;” another a “drunkard,” intemperate; another an “extortioner,” overreaching, overexacting, tyrannic.

(2) In whatever forms this “leaven” shows itself, it must not be tolerated for a moment. It must be excluded at once.

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB

1Co 5:1-5

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 momenta 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 honourableall 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, youoh, strange mystery of the invariable connection between sensuality and pridehave 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 usa world of spirit and spirits within the world of the sensesthe offender and the Church and St. Paul were inhabitants, and, hour by hour, the realities of life were most real in this occult domain. Therethe great secrets lie, the secret sources of motive and purpose, of strength and weakness, and of life and death. Therewe 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 therethis 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.

1Co 5:6-13

Supplementary views and explanations.

Was nothing necessary except to get rid of the offender? That was to be done, but something else was quite as much of an exigency. Here, then, we see the extent to which the enormous evil had spread, for the whole Church had been infected. If the vice had assumed in one man the completest form of social iniquity, what was the state of the atmosphere in which this was possible? Such corruption was not sporadic: the whole air was poisoned; and in this state of things nothing short of a general purification would suffice. For, in the midst of this widespread taint, you are breathing out your complacent self conceits Glorying (boasting) is not good. To glory in a time like this of your privileges, gifts, eloquence, devotion to leaders, is a wretched delusion, bad enough under any circumstances, incomparably worse now, because of the immense contrast between your state of mind and your actual condition. This is St. Paul’s argument. But his logic is not content to be logic only. Buoyant and flexible as are his reasonings, be must have the help of metaphors, since all our greatest thoughts tend to perfect themselves by means of the imagination. Beyond the illustrative imagination (for he is very utilitarian in the use of images) he seldom goes, and he is especially given to the habit of using the interrogatory imagination. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” Purge it outan earnest word; cleanse and purify by ridding the Church of its moral defilement, and so complete the work begun in the excommunication of the incestuous man. It is “old leaven,” the relic of the natural man, and it threatens to destroy the new man of Christ’s kingdom. For what now is the Divine ideal of a Christian? A new creature in Christ. And what the ideal of the Church? A new brotherhood of humanity in Christ. Therefore, purge out the old leaven, and be a new lump, remembering that even discipline executed in Christ’s name has its dangers, and may divert us from attention to our own spiritual condition. Inasmuch, then, as St. Paul looked on the excision of the ungodly member of the Church, and the internal purification of the Church in all its members, as branches of one and the same duty, he presses his argument under the idea of a new lump not a mere outer reform, but a thoroughgoing inward renewal by the grace of the Spirit. Such language could have emanated from no man who had not been a religious Jew. Nor could it have proceeded from one who was simply a spiritual Jew. It was a Christian thinker, a thinker of catholic insight, who saw into Judaism from the cross of Calvary, when that cross and its Divine Sacrifice had the great darkness under which they stood cleared away by Pentecost. Once St. Paul had understood the scrupulous removing of the leaven by the Jews from their homes in a very different way. Once he had seen in the Pass over and kindred institutions a life giving and perpetual force. Now, however, the images lingered in his thoughts, only to remind him that Christians were “unleavened,” and that all the leaven of impurity must be put away from them. For them the Paschal Lamb had been slain, and in the Victim’s death they had redemption. “Let us keep the feast;” our consecrated life a festival of gladness, and our thanksgiving continually ascending to God. And how shall this long and sacred festivity be observed? No external demonstrations are mentioned. Could the Jew conceive of a festival like this? Would not the pomp and show of national reunions, the booths and palm boughs, the cheer of open air life, and the music and domestic joy of the congregated caravans, rush upon him with their thrilling recollections? And would not the Greek, whose senses were so finely attuned to whatever was beautiful in material nature, and whose very birthright was the luxury of existence beneath skies and amid landscapes that seemed to pour their sympathies into his bosom,would not he recall the theatre and the games? And yet St. Paul tells them of a festival which the renewed soul may keep without any of these things, and be supremely happy. “The old leaven,” especially “the leaven of malice and wickedness,” must be excluded, and the feast must be kept “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The evil in our nature must be destroyed, and, in its place, must be had the genuine excellence which has been tried and proved, and the harmony that comes from self control because the human will is controlled by the indwelling Spirit of God. Virtues such as sincerity and truth need society, and, assuredly, society needs them. Eager to communicate and in turn to receive, what shall be the law of their intercourse with mankind? Fellowship is a Christian designation that cannot have its meaning in the world. But Christians are in the world, and a very important element in its life. To deny its associations and segregate themselves from others is to commit a species of suicide. On a former occasion St. Paul had written an Epistle touching this subject. But he had been misunderstood, and now he would rectify their error. They had blundered, not he. And now he sets the matter clearly before them by impressing on these Corinthians that there was not only a distinction between the Church and the world, but likewise between the good and the evil in the Church itself. Tares must grow with the wheat, but that was no reason why they should treat the tares as wheat. Fornicators in the Church or out of it were fornicators, and the brethren were not to keep company with them. And hence his explicitness, “not to company” with any man who was a fornicator, though he might be “called a brother.” Nor does he stop here. Covetous men, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, they were not to associate with on such terms of social companionship as would be symbolized by eating with them. How could he as an apostle judge those who were without? If he did not do this, could they suppose that he meant to require it of them? The outer world must be left with God. And now St. Paul returns to the matter engrossing his solicitude: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” If, indeed, Christ is our Paschal Lamb; if through that offering of expiation and reconciliation in itself forever perfect and by us realized in pardon and renewal and sanctification, life becomes an Easter of glad thanksgiving; we must make this sincerity (purity) and this truth (harmony) visible to the world in our social sympathies. Bodily sins are easily condoned among men: beware of that evil. Extortion and covetousness grow out of the idolatry of the senses, and they must not be countenanced by familiar association. How modern is this Epistle! No thought had St. Paul of us and our century, but these words of his rise from their local connections and assume universality of application. Corinth is at our doors, because its spirit is in all unsanctified hearts. And yetthanks to the grace of the Spiritin all the foremost civilizations of this age and over a wider space than ever before, the Paschal Lamb is precious to thousands. Since the days of the apostle, human life has expanded its outward area. Myriads of things, unknown to it then, are its possession and strength and glory now. Two wonderful enlargements have gone onthat of the universe to our comprehension, and this of the globe and the world to which we belong. And, in the midst of all the widening, specially in the fuller opening of human sympathies and the growth of human intercourse, the blessed festival of Christian life repeats its ancient joy and multiplies the participants of its Divine gladness.L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

1Co 5:1, 1Co 5:2

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 askIs 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.

1Co 5:3

“Absent in body, but present in spirit.”

Much as Paul loved his converts in the city of Corinth, he could not, at the period when he wrote this Epistle, think of visiting them. Their conduct in the matter treated in this chapter so distressed his pure and affectionate heart, so disappointed his expectations, that he felt constrained to remain absent from them. But in so doing he was not showing any lack of interest in their Christian life or their Church proceedings. Quite the contrary; he was content to stay away because, as the text makes evident, he knew there was a sense in which he was really with them.

I. THE SPECIAL INSTANCE OF THIS PRINCIPLE FURNISHED IN THE CASE OF PAUL AND THE CORINTHIANS. In what senses could the apostle deem himself to be with these Corinthian Christians “in spirit”?

1. By his teaching. He had long laboured in word and doctrine in this great centre of Greek commerce and literature, and amongst this company, of whom not many were wise or noble, but many were called and washed and sanctified by the gospel of Christ and by the Spirit of God. His teaching laid the foundation upon which Apollos and others had built. And we know enough of that teaching to be sure that it included many precepts and motives to holiness. This instruction had sunk into the hearts of the spiritually susceptible, and by it the apostle yet spake of this society, summoning them to a holy life, and bidding them maintain a standard of social purity.

2. By his authority. Paul never forgot that he was an inspired apostle of the Lord. He spake by the Spirit of the Lord, and his counsels were not those of human wisdom merely, but of celestial authority. What the Corinthians were directed to do they were to do in his name, and with the assurance that their action would be sanctioned by the Divine Head of the Church. In vindicating the purity of Christian communion, in cleansing the Bride of Christ from any stain of the world that had fallen upon her white robe, the Corinthians were to feel that the apostle was with them, inspiring and corroborating their lawful necessary action.

II. THE GENERAL OPERATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE IN THE LIVING CHURCH OF CHRIST JESUS.

1. The great Saviour and Founder of the Church is absent in body, but present in spirit. He himself assured his disciples that it was good for them that he should go away, for that thus the Comforter should come. And the spiritual and universal and perpetual presence of the great Head of the Church is thus delightfully and graciously secured.

2. The action of Christ’s Church, when in accordance with the express and plain instructions of our Lord and of his inspired apostles, must be recognized as prompted by his Spirit and sanctioned by his authority. In the application of this principle there are and will be many differences among the people of Christ, but with regard to the principle itself there should be no diversity or hesitation. We do not see his form or hear his voice; but we cannot question his spiritual presence. And he is at hand, not only to teach the disciple, to comfort the sufferer, to counsel those perplexed but to impart a Divine authority to the actions and to the discipline of who rely upon his Word and do his will.T.

1Co 5:6, 1Co 5:7

“Purge out the old leaven.”

The apostle sought the illustrations with which he enforced Christian doctrine and duty from every source, Hebrew and Gentile alike. In this passage he derives, from the practices of his countrymen during the festival of the Passover, a figure by which he brings before his readers the necessity of moral purity in life and in fellowship. As the Jews were accustomed at the approach of the feast to search out every scrap of leaven to be found in their houses, that they might duly keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, so were the Corinthians exhorted to clear themselves of all moral taint, that they might be a people meet for the fellowship and the service of the holy Redeemer.

I. THE IDEAL STATE OF THE CHRISTIAN HEART AND OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY IS ONE OF PERFECT FREEDOM FROM ALL TAINT OF SIN. It was a high and noble aim that which the Divine Founder of Christianity set before himthe formation of a society which should be pure with his own purity, i.e. both of life and of heart. It is to such an aim that he himself, and after him his inspired apostles, encourage all Christians to aspire: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

II. THERE IS A LEAVEN OF SINFUL INFLUENCE IN HUMAN NATURE AND IN HUMAN SOCIETY WHICH ENDANGERS THE PURITY OF THE CHURCH.

1. The presence of such a leaven was very painfully manifest in the society at Corinth. But where is the Christian community which is absolutely pure? There are societies which make great professions in this matter; but their “glorying is not good.” Where is the individual Christian in whose nature there is no trace of the old, worldly, sinful, corrupt humanity? The purest and the best are foremost to acknowledge that this is so.

2. Leaven furnishes an illustration of the diffusive, contagious, corrupting power of sin. A little leaven leavens the lump. A sin tolerated, a sinner countenanced, in a Christian society, may imperil the general purity. “One sickly sheep infects the flock;” “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” These and other proverbial intimations of the power of this principle are sufficient to put us upon our guard. Each heart is aware of the secret temptations to evil to which it is most exposed; and perhaps every one’s experience can show how evil habit grows when unchecked and indulged.

III. THE DIVINE SUMMONS REQUIRES THAT THE LEAVEN OF SIN BE REMOVED THAT THE MASS MAY BE PRESERVED IN PURITY.

1. The case of the Corinthians reminds us that the excision of an offending member may be necessary in order to vindicate Christian purity and to protest against the encroachments of sin. The old leaven must, in this sense, be “purged out.”

2. There is, however, a wider application of this principle. Corruption creeps into every nature, into every society. And the apostle here enjoins that we submit to no truce, to no compromise with sin, but that, for the sake of our own spiritual and eternal interests, we keep a watch upon ourselves, lest the sour leaven steal in unobserved, and corrupt our nature ere we be aware of its operation, or at all events its power. Holiness becometh the house of the Lord forever.T.

1Co 5:7

“Christ our Passover.”

The connection of this illustration with the passage in which it occurs is obvious. The Jews commenced the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the slaying, roasting, and eating of the Paschal lamb. Now, the apostle has been urging the Corinthians to moral purity, and has enjoined them to put away the leaven of wickedness, and keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth; and, as a motive to do this, he reminds them that the Christian dispensation is as a spiritual Passover, which commenced with the sacrifice of “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.” The Paschal lamb is regarded as a symbol of Christ.

I. IT COMMEMORATED A GREAT DELIVERANCE. The Israelites were reminded by the Passover feast of the bondage from which their ancestors had been delivered when they were brought out of Egypt “with a high hand and a stretched out arm.” The nation had been emancipated from the tyranny of the Pharaohs, and had been spared the doom of the first born of the people of the land. Christ’s redemption set his people free from the tyranny, the bondage, the unrewarded toil, the darksome night, the dreary hopelessness, of sin; and brought them out into the freedom, the light, the gracious privileges, the glorious hopes, of the gospel.

II. IT WAS SLAIN AS A DIVINELY ORDERED SACRIFICE AND OFFERING, Put to death by the head of the family, the lamb was taken to the priest, who sprinkled its blood upon the altar and burned its fat, according to the ordinance. Although the lamb was offered yearly, it was in the first instance that it was regarded most strictly as a sacrifice. Christ was offered once only; “There remaineth no more offering for sin.” Yet the Eucharist is a perpetual memorial of the great Sacrifice of Calvary. It is by the willing, accepted, vicarious sacrifice of our Redeemer that mankind have been reconciled and consecrated unto God.

III. IT WAS PARTAKEN BY THE FAITHFUL WORSHIPPERS IN THE PASCHAL MEAL. It was in this way that every Hebrew family was reminded of its share in the covenant mercy and faithfulness of the Eternal. As they ate the lamb in the appointed way, and with the appointed observances and accompaniments, the children of Israel were led to appropriate, in faith and obedience, the spiritual provision which the God of their fathers had made for them. In like manner the members of the spiritual commonwealth of Israel “eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man,” taking Christ as the nourishment of their souls, and appropriating the strength, the wisdom, the grace of God himself. In the sacrament of the Supper, they who eat and drink in faith participate in the provisions of Divine bounty and love.

IV. IT WAS SUGGESTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL, OF HOUSEHOLD, OF NATIONAL, PURITY. In connection with the Paschal meal, several circumstances may be noted. The lamb was without blemish; the house was freed from leaven; all were careful to avoid ceremonial defilement. These arrangements symbolized “holiness unto the Lord,” and they remind us that those who regard the Christ of God as their Passover are bound by every sacred consideration to seek that purity of heart, that sanctification of nature, which can alone render a man and a society acceptable to a holy and heart searching God.T.

1Co 5:8

The Christian festival.

The apostle seems to represent the whole of the Christian life as one long Passover festival and solemnity, and to invite his readers to unite with him in an appropriate and perpetual observance.

I. THIS FESTIVAL IS BASED UPON THE SACRIFICE AND REDEMPTION OF CHRIST JESUS. As the events connected with Israel’s emancipation from Egypt constituted the foundation of the national and religious life of the Hebrews, so we Christians date our fellowship, our standing, our privileges from the redeeming and mediatorial work of our Divine Saviour. Apart from him there would have been no foundation for our new life and hallowed communion; he accounts for all, and is himself “all and in all.”

II. THE OBSERVANCE OF THIS FESTIVAL MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE CHARACTER OF OUR LORD. “The leaven of malice and wickedness” has no place in the household of faith and holiness. As the Israelites ate the unleavened bread during the celebration of the Passover festival, so are Christians called to make their daily spiritual feast upon the purity, the sincerity, the truth which are the appropriate aliment of the consecrated Israel of God. In the Church which Christ has purchased with his precious blood, nothing impure, corrupt, defiling, should be tolerated. The Eucharistic meal should impart something of its character to all meals; and the holy and public observances of the Church should cast something of their glow and beauty upon the daily employments of the Lord’s consecrated people.

III. THIS IS AN UNBROKEN AND PERPETUAL FESTIVAL. The times and seasons, the sabbaths, new moons, and festivals, which were observed among the Jews, were doubtless designed to inculcate the practice and to familiarize with the idea of holiness. And they were intended to prepare for the dispensation which teaches that all days and all scenes, all relationships and all actions, are holy unto God. The spiritual festival to which Christians are bidden is one which never ends, the viands of Divine grace are never exhausted, the fellowship of the saints never wearies, and the Master of the banquet never departs.T.

1Co 5:9-11

The limits of fellowship.

“No man liveth unto himself.” Attempts have been made to build a science of human nature and a scheme of human life upon the foundation of the individual existence, but such attempts have failed. Man is born into society and lives in society, and is inexplicable apart from society. For good or for evil we are with one another. “As iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend;” “Evil communications corrupt good manners; He that walketh with wise men shall be wise.”

I. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE SOCIETY OF THEIR FELLOW CHRISTIANS. St. Paul possessed no small measure of what has been humorously called “sanctified common sense.” He saw clearly and at once that if a man set out with the determination to have no intercourse with those of different principles and sentiments from himself, he would be driven in consistency to “go out of the world.” So far from forbidding such intercourse, he permitted it, and even in some instances encouraged it.

1. The example of the Lord Jesus and of his apostles sanctions intercourse with general society. Jesus talked with persons of all sorts and conditions, accepted invitations to the houses of strangers, and even of enemies. And we find the apostles seeking introduction to Jews and Gentiles, to the virtuous and the vicious.

2. Such conduct exercises a power of attraction over all who are affected by it. The assumption of superior sanctity repels, whilst the kindly sympathy of neighbourhood, the good offices of social life, may lead to a desire to know and enjoy the blessings of the gospel.

3. Opportunities occur in social intercourse for introducing, either directly or indirectly, the truths of religion. It is not always the public proclamation of the truth which reaches the heart of the careless and ungodly. “A word spoken in season, how good it is!” Many have had reason for lifelong gratitude towards such as have in a casual way taken advantage of the opportunity to commend the gospel to their souls.

II. CHRISTIANS ARE RESTRAINED FROM FREE INTERCOURSE WITH FELLOW PROFESSORS WHOSE CONDUCT IS UNWORTHY OF THE NAME THEY BEAR.

1. It must not be supposed that we are confined to the fellowship of those whose character is mature and blameless. This would be to set up in the Church an aristocracy of the worst kind.

2. Those whose company is forbidden are such as, by manifest and flagrant violation of the moral law, prove the utter insincerity of their profession to be followers of Christ.

3. The reasons for this prohibition are obvious.

(1) It Could scarcely be other than injurious to our own moral nature to be intimate with those whose life belies their creed, whose hypocrisy is unmistakable.

(2) Such intimacy would be interpreted by the world as meaning that in our esteem it is of little consequence what a man is, if he only professes to be Christ’s.

(3) And there can be no question that to cultivate the friendship of a hypocrite would tend to encourage him in his sinful course; whilst to withdraw from his society might lead him to repentance.T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL

1Co 5:1-7

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 brothera brother greatly beloved, perhapsand 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.

1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8

“Our Passover.”

What the Jews had, we haveonly with fuller and richer significance. They had the foretastes, the shadows; we have the substance. The events in their history point forward to the greater events in ours. They had a Passover, and so have we; and theirs was a prefigurement of ours.

I. CHRIST IS OUR PASSOVER.

1. He was typified by the Paschal lamb. Often called the “Lamb” (for example, Joh 1:29; Rev 5:12).

(1) Appointed by God Israel’s Passover was “the Lord s Passover” (Exo 12:27); “My sacrifice” (Exo 23:1-33. 18). Jesus is the “Christ,” the Anointed of God. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him.” Here is our confidence, that our Passover is the Lord’s Passover, appointed and approved by the Eternal: “My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Salvation by the cross is God’s plan of salvation; it must, therefore, fully commend itself to God.

(2) Innocent. Here is the pathos of the cross. He died not for his sins, but for ours. He had not transgressed, but we had, and therefore he died.

(3) Without blemish. “With the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish” (1Pe 1:19). Keen unfriendly eyes were upon Christ, but the reluctant verdict was “no fault.” “Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb 7:26).

(4) Slain, Christ crucified. The converging point”Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” The Paschal lamb was slain by those for whose welfare and safety it was appointed; so Christ was crucified by men whom he came to redeem. No bone broken (comp. Exo 12:46 with Joh 19:36).

(5) The blood sprinkled. The blood shed is not enough, it must be applied. The blood of the Paschal lamb was applied with a bunch of hyssop, a type of “faith” which, though apparently small and insignificant, brings the blood of Christ into saving contact with the heart.

(6) The flesh eaten. We have to feed upon Christ. “My flesh is meat indeed.” The Passover was a feast; the idea of enjoyment is involved. So those who feast upon Christ obtain truest happiness. The Paschal lamb was eaten by the Israelites with loins girded, shoes on feet, staff in hand; so the followers of Christ, when they become such, confess themselves to be strangers and pilgrims upon the earth. The lamb was eaten in Egypt. So we are saved as sinners; we have not to come up out of the Egypt of corruption. We have not to get ourselves ready for Christ; we are ready when we are lost and desire to be found of him. Many are hindered by their “unworthiness;” they want to be holy before they seek salvation, which means that the patient desires to be cured before he sends for the doctor. And he comes to us; we do not come to him,we are in Egypt when we first behold the Lamb of God.

(7) The whole eaten. We have not to take a part of Christ. We have to accept the full terms of salvation, not those only that most please us. Christ and his cross as well as Christ and his crown.

(8) Eaten with bitter herbs. So repentance should accompany faith. We should have bitter sorrow for bitter sins. Our sins were very bitter to him. We have never tasted sin fullyonly a part of it, the sweeter part of it. He tasted the bitter part for us.

2. Identified with deliverance from wrath and bondage.

(1) From wrath. The destroying angel was abroad, and smote every house unprotected by the sprinkled blood. So the wrath of God falls upon the rejecters of Christ, but those upon whose hearts and consciences the blood of Christ is sprinkled are preserved from the stroke of Divine justice. At the cross “righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psa 85:10). The blood of the Paschal lamb made the Israelite perfectly safe; we are made so by the blood of Christ.

(2) From bondage. The Passover and the Exodus are indissolubly united. So in our spiritual history. When God pardons, the bondage of Satan is destroyed. We are no longer slaves of the devil, but children of God. And this becomes manifested; justification and sanctification, joined by God, are not put asunder. We begin a new life; we depart from our old master; we “spoil the Egyptians,” for we bring everything with us out of the old life that is worth bringing; and our faces are set towards the new Jerusalem, the everlasting home of the redeemed.

II. THE INFLUENCE OF OUR PASSOVER ON OUR LIFE. At the Passover the Jews were exceedingly anxious to get rid of every particle of leaven (Deu 16:4); so all who can call Christ their Passover should search and purify their hearts. As the Feast of Unleavened Bread followed the slaying of the Paschal lamb, so the unleaven of righteousness, of godly life, should abide with all who have part in the great Passover. This is “keeping the feast.” It is then a feast, a time of joy to the believer, when all leaven of “malice and wickedness” is excluded. The “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” is not only wholesome, it is surprisingly sweet. The influence of Christ’s death is not only towards salvation, but towards holiness. If we are his we must depart from evil. We must have works as well as faiththe former a natural outcome of the latter. The one is not without the otherthe Passover and unleavened bread go together. Profession by all means, but certainly practice as well. We must show that we are out of Egypt by a repudiation of Egyptian manners. “Christ our Passover;” “For to me to live is Christ.”H.

1Co 5:9-13

Converse with the ungodly.

I. IN OUR ORDINARY LIFE WE MUST ASSOCIATE MORE OR LESS WITH THE IMPURE AND GODLESS. Our legitimate business leads us among such, our duties as citizens and subjects as well. If we kept ourselves entirely apart, we should have “to go out of the world.”

1. Christianity is not designed to drive us “out of the world.” We are to live among men righteously. Here we have an argument against monasticism, which is “going out of the world” to escape from its evils.

2. Our Lord and Master mixed freely amongst men.

3. We have many opportunities of witnessing for Christ when we come in contact with men of the world. This should never be lost sight of; private Christians thus may become ministers and missionaries. And they may thus reach classes beyond the ordinary aggressive means. Christians should live the gospel amidst a crooked and perverse generation.

4. Still, we must recognize the peril of such association with ungodly men. Duty may call us to mix with worldlings, but duty will never call us to shut our eyes to the danger of doing this. The hunter may be right in running into peril, but he can’t be right in refusing to recognize the peril, and in making no provision for it. When we go into the world we should go armed. “The whole armour of God” should be our panoply. We should not go alone; we may go with Christ if the path be the path of duty. Prayer, watchfulness, God reliance, not self reliance, should be remembered. We are then not only in an enemy’s country, but the enemy is around us and will soon attack. “Be ye also ready:” many have been unready, and have been sorely wounded of the archers. Go not further into the world than duty bids you.

II. BUT WE ARE NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH A PROFESSED CHRISTIAN WHO WALKS DISORDERLY. The case is here altered. Those outside are as strangers to us, though we mix among them; this one we know and have been identified with. Those outside are left to the judgment of God; we have no part in judging them. But we have in the case of an offending brother. As members of the Church, it is our duty to sit in judgment upon him (1Co 5:4, 1Co 5:5), and, if the offence be sufficiently serious, to expel him. Hence, forth, until he repents we are not to have fellowship with him, not even to eat with him, but to show him by our conduct what has been expressed in the Church’s decree, viz. that he is separated until repentance and amendment. If this were not so:

1. The force of Church discipline would be seriously weakened. It would become largely unmeaning. It would be very idle, as well as scandalously contradictory, to cut off from fellowship and to admit to it at the same time.

2. The effect upon the offender would be lessened. Church discipline does not lose sight of his welfare; it is directed towards his recovery and restoration. But if it is to produce this effect it must be felt. It cannot be felt if practically it is destroyed.

3. It would seem as though the evil were lightly esteemed. This would bring a great scandal upon Christianly. It would not only expose it to contempt, but justify contempt.

4. There would be much peril to the other members of the Church:

(1) In the association. There is often more peril in associating with a false professor than with an open evil doer.

(2) In the conviction that they could sin with comparative impunity so far as the Church was concerned.

We may askWhat kinds of sin involve such separation? The apostle gives a list of transgressors.

(1) Fornicators. The unclean; professing purity, practising impurity.

(2) The covetous. Those who make a god of the things of sense. Heart idolatry.

(3) Idolaters. Probably those who, professing to serve the only true God, identified themselves very closely with idolaters, joined in their feasts and sacrifices, and so became partakers of their guilt. There are many professors now who pay homage to “the god of this world.” A little wholesome Church discipline might not be altogether thrown away upon some of these.

(4) Railers or revilers. Those who say they have a clean heart, but keep a foul mouth.

(5) Drunkards. Those who claim to be akin to Christ, and yet sink themselves lower than the brutes.

(6) Extortioners. Greedy, grasping souls, who overreach and cheat others, but who overreach and cheat themselves pre-eminently. We may not company with these; we may pray for them, we may labour for their recovery. We may do so gratefully, humbly, remembering that we stand because Divine grace upholds us.H.

HOMILIES BY E. BREMNER

1Co 5:1-6

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 selectivenot embracing all men as such, but only those who have been called out from the world (). The dividing line is not absolutethere 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).

2. 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”. 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.

3. 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.

1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8

The Christian life a Paschal feast.

The mention of leaven recalls to the apostle’s mind the Jewish Passover, in connection with which the putting away of leaven was strictly enjoined. A most careful search was made forevery remnant of the forbidden substance, especially in later times, when every hole and corner was ransacked with candles. What was done then with leaven should be done now with that of which leaven is the type (comp. Exo 12:1-51.).

I. CHRIST OUR PASCHAL LAMB. Note the main points of correspondence between the type and the antitype.

1. The lamb was to be “without blemish.” Jesus Christ was “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb 7:26); “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Pe 1:19).

2. The lamb was slain. It was a sacrifice, the victim’s life going for the life of the people. Jesus Christ was crucified for us, “bearing our sins in his body upon the tree” (1Pe 2:24).

3. The blood of the lamb was sprinkled “on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses.” It was not enough that the blood was shed, it must also be put as a mark on the door. “And when I see the blood, I will pass over you” (Exo 12:7, Exo 12:13). Even so the blood of Jesus Christ must be applied to each individual sinner ere it can avail to deliver from the condemnation. Personal faith in him appropriating his atoning sacrifice, is the hand that dips the hyssop in the basin and sprinkles the blood on the house.

4. The lamb was to be eaten that night by the household. Its blood was their protection, its flesh their food. Jesus Christ is our Life as well as our Atonement. The believer sheltered by his blood draws his nourishment from him (Joh 6:51).

II. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE AN UNLEAVENED FESTIVAL.

1. It is a festival. “Let us keep the feast.” There is no special reference to the Lord’s Supper, but to the whole Christian life. What the Paschal week was to the Jew, the believer’s life is to be to him. It is to be

(1) consecrated to God, and

(2) spent in grateful remembrance of God’s redeeming mercy.

All through let us keep festival in view of the Lamb slain, with the joy of those who have been delivered from bondage.

2. It is to be kept without leaven. All sin is to be purged out. The Christian is ideally unleavened. Theoretically no leaven was to be found in the houses of Israel during the Passover, although some of it might escape the most diligent search; and so believers, as they stand in Christ, are dead to sin. This is the high calling which we are to make our own by putting away all sin. Let us be in reality what we are in idea (l Peter 1Co 2:9)let us be a holy people. Every form of vice and wickedness must be cast away as inconsistent with our unleavened condition, and only “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” be found in our homes. A pure, transparent, honest life, corresponding in all things to the truth, becomes those who rightly “keep the feast.”B.

1Co 5:9-13

The intercourse of Christians with the world.

In a former letter, now lost, Paul had given the Corinthians instructions not to mix themselves up with persons of evil character. These instructions had been misunderstood, and the apostle now explains what his meaning was.

I. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT TO AVOID NECESSARY INTERCOURSE WITH THE WORLD, Society at Corinth was corrupt. Every law in both tables was habitually transgressed, and to avoid meeting such transgressors was impossible. And this is true of the world as it now is outside the Church. You have to do business in it. and to deal often with men whose character is immoral. You cannot help forming relationships with them, and being associated with them in many ways. But while this is a necessity of our situation in a wicked world, true Christians will not make companions of such sinners. Duty may take you into unpleasant and dangerous localities, but you do not remain there of choice. Whilst you are in the world, as the followers of Christ you are not of it.

II. PROFESSING CHRISTIANS OF EVIL CHARACTER ARE TO BE SHUNNED. Remembering the condition of Corinthian society, we are not astonished to find such sins as Paul here mentions appearing in the Church. A so called Christian living in the practice of these or similar iniquities, thereby proves himself to be no Christian at all. There must be no fellowship with such persons, no eating and drinking with them as if they belonged to the Church. They are to be put out of the Christian society. This applies, not only to the judicial act of the Church, but also to the conduct of individual members towards offenders. There must be a holy abhorrence of the sin as defiling the body of Christ, and a careful keeping of our garments clean. Not, however, with the mistaken aim of having a perfectly pure Church; for discipline can take cognizance only of open and scandalous sins. Nor are we to act in a censorious or Pharisaic spirit. Along with hatred of the sin let there be a Christ like compassion for the sinner.B.

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8

“Christ our Passover.”

At no point is the relation between Christianity and the old economy of the Law more profoundly interesting and significant than at that which is indicated in this passage. Of the Passover it is emphatically true that it was as a “shadow,” of which the substance, the body, is in Christ. The memorial of that grand Divine interposition by which the Hebrews passed out of their primitive state of miserable subjection to a foreign power into that of a free and independent people with Jehovah as their King, it also foreshadowed the great redemption of the Church, and the establishment of that eternal kingdom of which Christ is the living Lord. Consider

(1) The analogy;

(2) the exhortation based on it.

I. THE ANALOGY. “Christ our Passover.” Both in the type and in the antitype we have:

1. A vicarious sacrifice. The slaying of the Paschal lamb, which was the leading feature in the whole Passover festival, was clearly of this nature. The lamb was a blameless creature, the very emblem of simple, guileless innocence. It had no share in the sins and sorrows of the people. Unlike them, it needed no redemption. It was the victim of their necessities. It suffered death for their sakes, died to serve the interests of their life. The broad mark of resemblance, in this respect, between the lamb and Christ is the very heart and core of the meaning of the text. In him we see the highest expression of that great law of self sacrifice which pervades the universe, and of which the slaying of the Paschal lamb (as, indeed, the slaying of every lamb) was one of the lower forms. “Not for himself was he cut off; Wounded for our transgressions;” “Slain for us.” The innocence of the lamb, and especially the fact that it was “without blemish,” the very flower of the flock, was typical of his sinless perfection, his absolute exemption from the evil that belongs to us. While its patient yielding up of its life dimly imaged forth the sublime self surrender of his love, when, for our sakes, he “offered himself without spot unto God.”

2. The instrument of a great deliverance. The sprinkling of the blood on the door posts of the Israelites was both the condition of their safety and the sign and pledge to them that they were safe (Heb 11:27). There could be no fitness in the phrase, “Christ our Passover,” except as meaning that the blood of Christ is to us the means of an infinitely greater deliverance. Salvation from death for the human race, through the virtue of his death as its Representative and Head, is the fundamental truth of the Christian system. On this truth rests the whole fabric of the kingdom of God among men. It is a kingdom founded, built up, consummated, glorified, by the power of a crucified Redeemer. We are reminded how

“All the souls that are were forfeit once,
And he who might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy.”

“We have redemption through his blood,” delivered by it from “the power of darkness.” And the destroying angel cannot touch the house that has taken shelter under the shield of its efficacious grace.

3. The pledge and seal of a consecrated life. The first Passover marked the beginning for the Hebrews of a new and distinctly national existence. However slow they may have been to recognize the full meaning of this, the most prominent feature of their position ever after was that principle of separation and consecration to the Lord, of which the blood of the Paschal lamb was the symbol and the seal. Special emphasis is given to this by the fact that the Passover was at first a purely family observance. Its moral influence began at the very fountainhead of national lifethe family circle. It was thus the memorial of a covenant that existed before the Law, before the priesthood; and may well be regarded as prefiguring a grace that is independent of all national and ecclesiastical conditions, all Churches, priesthoods, ritual ordersthe bond of the fellowship of the elect and reconciled children of God. Thus is participation in Christ, “our Passover,” the beginning of a new life, the seal of a new Divine relationship, the charter of spiritual freedom, the pledge of personal consecration, the passport to citizenship in the eternal kingdom of God.

II. THE EXHORTATION. “Wherefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven,” etc. The seven days’ Feast of Unleavened Bread followed the slaying of the Paschal lamb. In “the feast” the apostle may possibly have indirect reference to that sacred observance of “the Lord’s Supper,” in the institution of which he himself developed the Jewish Passover into its simpler Christian form (Luk 22:15, Luk 22:16). This also, though no sacrifice, is both a memorial and a prophecy. “As often as ye eat,” etc. (1Co 11:26). But the reference is far broader. It indicates the life long feast of Christian fellowship and service. We are reminded:

1. That the value of all the solemnities of our religionsabbaths, sacred seasons, special Divine manifestations, acts of worship, etc.lies in the influence they exert on our personal character and conduct. Let our daily life be a “sacrament,” a solemn yet joyous Passover of love, and gratitude, and trust, and praise.

2. That in order to this we must be “purged from our old sins.” The evil of the past must be resolutely abandoned. “Malice and wickedness” cast out from our dwellings, that “sincerity and truth” may take their place. Simplicity of mind, singleness of heart, honesty of purpose,these are the cardinal Christian virtues, the very “bread and staff of life” to all Christian strength and nobleness.W.

HOMILIES BY D. FRASER

1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8

The Passover and the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is not the Passover; but the one sprang from the other, and is to Christians what the other was to Hebrews, the memorial of redemption.

I. THE MEANING OF THESE ORDINANCES. In the Passover were two parts, closely connected and yet distinct.

1. The sacrifice of an unspotted lamb.

2. The feast on the sacrifice kept by each household.

Under the established ritual in Israel, the former was rendered at the sanctuary. It required an altar, and the hand of an authorized priest or Levite. The latter was within the domestic circle. It required no other celebrant than the head of a household. There was no altar, but a family table. The service was not propitiatory, but commemorative and social. The Lord’s Supper can never be clearly understood if these two elements are superstitiously confused together. There is an exhibition, not a renewal, of the sacrifice of Christ. The altar has been served, and its occupation is gone. We have no more need of altar on earth, or sacrificing priest. Christ our Passover “has been sacrificed.” What remains is the feast of commemoration and communion; and for this a table only is wanted, with one to preside and lead the service, not a priest to interpose between the Christians and Christ. But while these two things are not to be confounded, they are not to be put apart in our thoughts. It is not enough to say of the Lord’s Supper that it is a social pledge of Christian friendship and a common hope. It may not be dissociated from the impressive thought and fact of Christ’s atonement for our sins; and we cannot regard those who deny the propitiatory character and value of the Lord’s death as competent to administer or partake of the Lord’s Supper. The Passover was a family service, because it commemorated the redemption of a nation which was reckoned in tribes according to families. The Lord’s Supper is observed by groups, congregations, or organized companies of Christians, because it commemorates the redemption of the Church which is arranged and reckoned in congregations or groups, all forming one “household of faith.”

II. THE COMMUNICANTS. “Let us keep the feast.” No alien or uncircumcised person might partake of the Paschal supper; but all the congregation of Israel was charged to observe this ordinance, for redemption was not the privilege of the few, but the joy of the whole nation. And for the occasion, distinctions of rank and opulence within the nation were ignored. As all classes had shared the bondage, so were all classes to share the joy of redemption. Let all who have redemption through the blood of Christ “keep the feast” of the Lord’s Supper, and that in obedience to his command, not as and because they think proper, but as and because the Lord has appointed it in his Church. And let no difference of rank, wealth, or social position be recognized. The eminent and the obscure, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, are at this, if at no other table, to eat of the same bread and drink from the same cup. Such as are aliens from the faith, or uncircumcised in heart, are not entitled to communicate.

III. THE DISPOSITIONS WHICH OUGHT TO CHARACTERIZE COMMUNICANTS. The Passover was the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Hence the apostle’s charge, “Purge out the old leaven.” We know that the Jews were extremely punctilious in this respect, and searched their houses minutely, lest in a dark corner some particle of leaven might lie unsuspected; for leaven was regarded as a symbol of corruption and of the self propagating power of evil. With similar earnestness should Christians examine themselves, and so eat and drink of the Lord’s Supper. Away with the old leaven; the tendency to corruption which belongs to the old life is sin. Away with malice and wickedness; purge out even the smallest fragments of unholy disposition and temper, and keep the feast with sincerity and truth. The Corinthians were required to prove their sincerity by excluding from communion a certain “wicked person,” whose conduct had brought reproach on the Christian name. So must we be ready at all times to prove our sincerity by renouncing fellowship with unrighteousness and concord with Belial. They were also required to have “truth in the inward parts,” and so are we. We fall short of that strength of faith, fervour of love, and depth of humility which would well become communicants at the holy table of our Lord; but at all events we may bring, and ought to bring, to the feast hearts honest and true. “Lord, thou knowest all things.” Thou knowest our shortcomings, perversities, stupidities, follies, prejudices, errors, and faults; but “thou knowest that we love thee.” We are not at thy table playing a part or affecting devotion to thee in order to be seen of men. Far from us be such ghastly hypocrisy! Ours be the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.F.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

1Co 5:2-5

Right feeling towards erring brethren.

There have been a great variety of forms in which men have attempted to associate religion and immorality. Multiplied explanations and excuses have been given, if so be the indulgence of the immoral may be maintained; but it remains as searchingly true as ever it was, that into the kingdom of our Lord and Saviourhere or yondernothing entereth that “defileth, or worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: and that every Christian man should know how to possess the vessel of his body in sanctification and honour, net being “conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of his mind.” He is to “come out from the world, and to be separate, and in no wise touch the unclean thing.” There were special forms of sensuality characteristic of and encouraged by paganism; but the sin into which the member of the Christian Church at Corinth had fallen was one which would be utterly repudiated and condemned by Gentile and Jew alike. It was one wholly subversive of family and social relations; and anything approaching to the toleration of it in the Christian Church would seriously imperil its character, and give at least apparent ground for the shameful accusations which its enemies brought against it. For the Levitical law upon the matter, see Lev 18:8. In advising the Church as to its mode of dealing with this erring brother, there is an unusual severity in the apostle’s language; and this is accounted for rather by the attitude which he understood the Church had taken towards the offender, than by his sense of the enormity of the offence. St. Paul’s supreme jealousy was ever concerning the purity, good order, and moral worth of the Churches. He seems to have highly valued characterin the individual and in the Churchas being the best witness among men for Christ. He strongly affirmed the absolute necessity of the connection between morality and Christianity, and based his argument on this foundation principleour whole being, spirit, mind, and body, is the Lord’s; and this whole being is redeemed in Christ, and is to be, in actual fact, wholly won and held for Christ. It may also be noted, in introducing the subject, that our idea as to the purity, unity, and model order of the early Church is quite a fanciful one. Probably there was no separate Church of those times that came anywhere near realizing the Christian ideal. We consider, from these verses, two things.

I. THE SIN OF A CHRISTIAN PROFESSOR. It may be shown:

1. Whence it may come.

(1) from relics of old evil;

(2) from circumstances reviving old feeling;

(3) from neglect of due self watchfulness and culture;

(4) from undue fulness of eating and drinking;

(5) from the friendship of those who may lead astray;

(6) from sudden influx of bodily passion; and

(7) from actual occasions of temptation.

Though regenerate in will and life principle, the Christian must never forget that he is not free from the relics of evil in his nature and habits, or from the influence of evil in his surroundings; and therefore he constantly needs the counsel, “Watch and be sober.” It should be especially pointed out that the most perilous temptations to which Christian professors are subject are those which come suddenly, reaching them at moments when some unguardedness or some self confidence lays them open to assault.

2. How it may gain its support. Here only one point is dwelt on. The apostle is anxious about the perversion of Christian doctrine to the excusing of sin. In many ways what is known as the antinomian spirit has been made the excuse of sin. It cannot be too constantly affirmed that, so far from releasing its members from the claims and obligations of the moral Law, Christianity presses them with tenfold urgency, for it demands an obedience that shall not be merely formal, but one that concerns motive and feeling and will. See the teaching of our Lord in Mat 5:17-48.

II. THE RELATION OF FELLOW PROFESSORS TO SUCH SIN. No doubt, at Corinth, each individual Christian would strongly and decidedly condemn this erring brother, but party spirit was so rife in the Church, that some took his side, and laboured to find excuses for him, or to secure the continuance of his membership. It is still found most difficult to carry out the due discipline of the Church, seeing that party feeling gathers round even the drunken, the dishonest, and the immoral. It is, indeed, important that all judicial action should be taken by the Church itself, and that individuals should not have independent authority to exclude or to punish, but only right of speaking and of acting in the Church’s name. St. Paul urges:

1. That every effort should be made to cherish and to inculcate right sentiment concerning the sin.

2. That action should be taken which would clear the Church of any suspicion of complicity in or approval of the sin. It must be made quite plain that the sin is the sin of an individual, and is an outrage on the Church’s principles and purity.

3. And the action must be taken in such a way as may hopefully bear on the recovery of the sinner from his sin. This appears to be the idea of St. Paul in the figure of “delivering to Satan.” The sinner was to be given over for a while to suffer the miserable consequences of his sin, but only in the hope that he would be humbled and brought to penitence and confession; and this seems to have been the result in the case of the Corinthian offender.

In conclusion, press that

(1) the moral purity of the Christian Church should be the supreme anxiety of every member of it; and

(2) that the maintenance of such purity is quite consistent with the fullest Christian charity, which, through all its dealings, keeps steadily in view the reformation of the offender.R.T.

1Co 5:5

The very sufferings of Christian sinners may be overruled unto sanctifying.

On the precise meanings and references of the terms and figures used in this verse, the exegetical portion of the Commentary should be consulted. Some suppose that a temporal judgment, sickness, or loss, followed on the excommunication of this offender (as in the cases of Ananias, Elymas, etc.), and that such suffering became disciplinary, and resulted in the man’s full moral recovery. “As a man soweth, thus shall he also reap;” and we need only explain the term “deliver unto Satan” as meaning, leave the man to the consequences naturally and necessarily following on his sin; the very first of these consequences being his separation from Christian fellowship and Christian privileges. “It should be carefully noticed that it is not the body, but the flesh, that is, the carnal appetite, that is to be destroyed by the chastisement.” F. W. Robertson says, “Here the peculiarly merciful character of Christianity comes forth; the Church was never to give over the hope of recovering the fallen. Punishment, then, here is remedial. If St. Paul punished, it was that the ‘spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.’ And hence (putting capital punishment out of the present question) to shut the door of repentance upon any sin, to make outcasts forever, and thus to produce despair, is contrary to the idea of the Church of Christ, and alien from his spirit.” Unfold and illustrate both from Scripture and modern life

I. HOW CERTAINLY ALL SIN, UNCHECKED, BEARS ITS FRUITAGE OF SUFFERING. There may be even prolonged delay, and consequent presumption in keeping on in sin. But the suffering comes at last; it is certain as the returning harvest. Take two cases.

1. The familiar one of the drunkard. Want cometh, on him and his, as an armed man.

2. The dishonest. A man placed in a position of trust embezzles secretly for years; at last, just as his children are on the threshold of manhood and womanhood, ruin and shame come on them; flight, desolation, misery, and the exile’s poverty for him. Man cannot take “fire into his bosom and not be burned; nor can he touch pitch and fail to be defiled.” The laws of heredity being now better understood, we can feel more deeply how a man’s sins can carry a burden of suffering, even to the innocent unborn generations.

II. HOW, FOR THE ERRING CHRISTIAN, SUCH NECESSARY SUFFERING OR SUCH DIRECT DIVINE JUDGMENT MAY BE REMEDIAL. Illustration may be taken from David’s experience, as indicated in his words, “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now will I keep thy Word.” Explain the process by which, under God, suffering influences the views and feelings of the erring Christian; but point out carefully how suffering affects differently the good and the bad man. It tends rather to harden the bad, because it seems to him mere loss and disability. It softens and humbles the Christian, because by him it is known as the heavenly Father’s chastening hand. Show how the sanctifying discipline of suffering is shown in the very story of our human race. The “day of the Lord Jesus” may be conceived as the time when a man’s life story is complete; then it can come into consideration and judgment. Then it may be seen that, through all the sufferings that followed upon the soilings, “the spirit has been saved.” Press that “delivering over to Satan” does not put the erring one out of Christ’s loving thought and care, and therefore it should never put him out of our Christian interest and prayer and sympathy. We must ever keep his welcome back awaiting him.R.T.

1Co 5:6

The lesson of the leaven.

It is very confidently affirmed that leaven is always used in a had sense in Scripture, and is the illustration of the working of evil principle. Some forcing of Scripture is, however, necessary if a bad sense must be always found; and while we must admit that leavening is, in measure, a corrupting process, we should also recognize that the permeating influence of leaven may be used to illustrate the advance and extension of good principle. Undoubtedly it is the tendency of evil to propagate itself rapidly, and infect all around it, on which the apostle here dwellsa tendency which may be also illustrated by the insidious spreading of contagious and infectious disease. It may be helpful to give some account of the character and action of “leaven.” Hugh Macmillan says, “It consists of myriads of the cells of the common green mould in an undeveloped state. If a fragment of the dough with the leaven in it be put aside in a shady place, the cells of the fungus in the leaven will vegetate, and cover the dough with a slight downy substance, which is just the plant in its complete form. The swelling of the dough, and the commotion which goes on in the leavened mass, are owing to the multiplication of the plant cells, which takes place with astonishing rapidity. By this process of vegetation, the starch and sugar of the dough are converted into other chemical products. But it is only allowed to go to a certain length, and then the principle of growth is checked, by placing the dough in the oven and baking it into bread. Leaven is thus a principle of destruction and constructionof decay and of growthof death and of life. It has two effects, which are made use of as types in Scripture. On the one side, the operation of leaven upon meal presents an analogy to something evil in the spiritual world; for it decays and decomposes the matter with which it comes into contact. On the other side, the operation of leaven upon meal presents an analogy to something good in the spiritual world; for it is a principle of life and growth, and imparts a new energy and a beneficent quality to the matter with which it comes in contact.” Archbishop Trench says, “In some passages, the puffing up, disturbing, souring propotries which leaven has are the prominent points of comparison; in others, its warmth, its penetrative energy, the power which a little of it has to lend its own savour and virtue to much wherewith it is brought in contact.”

I. LEAVEN IS A FIGURE OF MORAL EVIL IN THE CHURCH. It suggests

(1) the insidious nature,

(2) the rapid propagation,

(3) the corrupting influence, of evil.

“Observe, the evil was not a matter of example, but of contagion. Such a one as this incestuous manwicked, impenitent, and unpunishedwould infect the rest of the Church. Who does not know how the tone of evil has communicated itself? Worldly minds, irreverent minds, licentious minds, leaven society. You cannot be long with persons who by innuendo, double meaning, or lax language, show an acquaintance with evil, without feeling in some degree assimilated to them, nor can you easily retain enthusiasm for right amongst those who detract and scoff at goodness.” The corrupting influence of evil in the Church may be illustrated from the history of the great heresies, more especially those which have been started by immoral and unworthy men.

II. SUCH MORAL EVIL IS SURE PRESENTLY TO ATTRACT PUBLIC ATTENTION. And so it brings a wrong estimate of the Chinch, and excites prejudice against it. The Church has most gravely suffered, in every age, from her unworthy members, who have been only too readily regarded, by outsiders, as the Church’s representatives. “The student of history wilt remember how dexterously Gibbon contrives to throw discredit upon Christianity by enlarging upon the shortcomings of the early Church, and by evading the comparison between its moral elevation and the shocking demoralization of heathen society.”

III. SUCH MORAL EVIL HAS A DANGEROUSLY ACTIVE AND PERVASIVE INFLUENCE, “It leaveneth the whole lump.” It spreads in the soil as the roots of bindweed. Therefore, as, in preparation for the Paschal feast, the Jews carefully and minutely searched forevery particle of leaven, to turn it out of their houses, so must the Christian Church watch lest any bad person come into its membership, and must strictly exclude those who may take bad ways after joining its membership, lest their evil influence should be found to pervade the whole lump. The very first symptoms and indications of moral evil demand resolute dealing, and should be immediately met by the strong yet charitable discipline of the Church. In simple language, suited for children, the poet expresses the danger dealt with in this homily.

“One sickly sheep infects the flock,
And poisons all the rest.”

R.T.

1Co 5:7

The Christian Church as unleavened.

“As ye are unleavened.” The idea of the Church is of a pure and unadulterated and uncorrupted mass, and every individual member of the Church is under obligation to aid in securing and maintaining the purity. The Church must put out, purge out, and keep out, the very relics of the old leaven. Reference is made in the figure which St. Paul uses to the Jewish custom of searching for leaven, which was probably retained in the apostle’s time. “Because Scripture speaks of ‘searching Jerusalem with candles’ (Zep 1:12), they used to carry out this custom of searching for leaven with great strictness, taking a candle and ‘prying into every mouse hole and cranny,’ as St. Chrysostom says, so as to collect even the smallest crumb of leavened bread, which was to be placed in a box or some place where a mouse could not get at it.”

I. THE CHRISTIAN CALL TO BE UNLEAVENED. “Ye are not called unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” The apostles were especially called to witness to a truth by word of lip; but, while each member was equally called to speak for Christ, the testimony of the Church, as a whole, was to be the testimony of its purity. Its very aim was to be to keep itself separate and free from the evils and defilements of the world. Show how far the modern Church may be regarded as having forgotten the Divine call unto “uncorruptness.”

II. THE CHRISTIAN PERIL OF BECOMING LEAVENED. A peril coming

(1) from without, in the attractions of worldly pleasure and success;

(2) from within, by the defection of individuals, and their evil influence, or by the unwatchfulness and neglected spiritual culture of many. When Christians cease to find their joy in God, they easily seek for it in the world and in worldly things.

III. THE CHRISTIAN CARE TO KEEP UNLEAVENED. This care should characterize each for himself, and each for the other. And it should ever be regarded as the great life burden of the Christian and the Church. It must cost constant watchfulness and effort; and he who would be pure must learn how to deal sternly with himself.R.T.

1Co 5:7

Christian fellowship a Passover feast.

The sentence, “Even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us,” appears to be suddenly inserted in the paragraph, without any immediately evident connection with it. Such connection we seek to discover, and then we would press home that particular duty which the apostle is so earnestly urging upon the Corinthian Church. Exactly rendered, St. Paul’s words are, “For also Christ our Passover is slain.” There is no word for “even;” the words “for us” are not found in some of the best manuscripts; and the order of the words is very carefully arranged, so as to throw the stress of the sentence on the term “is slain.” The apostle has some point to impress by this fact, “Christ is slain:” he is not “about to be slain,” or “being slain;” it is an accomplished, completed, historical fact, “he is slain;” “he has been slain.” From a reference in one of the later chapters, we find that St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Corinthians just about the time of the Passover; his mind was occupied with the associations of this feast, and so, in a very natural way, he took his illustration from it. Reverting to the original appointment of the Passover, we observe that the Lord designed to come in one last and overwhelming judgment on the rebellious Egyptians. God’s people dwelt in the very midst of them, but no Divine judgments hung over them. Still, it was necessary that, by some sign, the Israelites’ houses should be distinguished from others. The observance of an appointed sign would prove the obedience of Israel, and clearly mark the judgment as Divine. The point in the matter to which St. Paul now directs attention is, however, thisthe slaying of the lamb was the beginning of the Feast of the Passover, or of Unleavened Bread, if the lamb was killed, the feast time had plainly begun (see Exo 12:18), and no leaven ought to be found in their habitations. This is the thing on which the apostle fixes for the enforcement of his counsel. It is as if he had said, “This is the time of the Christian feast of the unleavened. ‘Christ our Passover is sacrificed;’ the purity time has therefore come. Our feast is not indeed for seven days only, but for our whole life. We too are under the most solemn responsibilities; pledged to lives of holiness; bound to cleanse out every relic of the old leaven of sin and self will, urged by every persuasion to ‘perfect holiness in the fear of God;’ and set upon ‘possessing our vessels in sanctification and honour.'” We must be practically what we are theoretically, a new and regenerated society. Dwelling on the Christian suggestions of the text, we notice

I. THE SLAYING OF THE CHRISTIAN PASSOVER LAMB. Limit the thought on this to the one thing that is prominently in the apostle’s mind. The word “Passover” is used by him for that seal which marked the Israelites off from the Egyptians, so that the destroying angel might pass over their houses. The blood of the lamb, sprinkled on the lintel and posts, was the sign that marked them as the Lord’s obedient people, the objects of his grace, experiencing then a preservation which was to be followed by a glorious deliverance. This feature of the old Passover may be pressed on the Christian Church. The apostle says, “You too are marked off as God’s; for you the Passover Lamb has been slain; on you the blood has been sprinkled; for you the great deliverance has been wrought; you are actually now sealed over, as a Christian Church, unto God, by the blood of the everlasting covenant.”

II. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THOSE SPRINKLED WITH THE PASSOVER BLOOD. As sealed over to God, Israel was bound to realize what was involved in their side of the covenant into which they had entered. On God’s side, the covenant pledged fatherly interest, unceasing care, gracious provision for all need, and the fulfilment of certain defined promises. On man’s side, it pledged obedience, service, and above all else, separation from the world, and purity. God impressed his claim to this purity by instituting the seven days of unleavened feast immediately on the sealing of the covenant, enjoining that what they did symbolically for seven days they were in moral and spiritual manner to do all their days. St. Paul applies this to the Corinthian Christians, who had, as it were, entered fully into covenant with God, seeing that Christ, their Passover, had been slain. They too should remember to what moral life and conduct they were pledged. They must realize a spiritual separation from evil; holiness becometh the people of God.

Press that each of us should seek to realize the responsibilities of our Christian standing. This is the time when, in home, and family, and society, and business, and the Church, we have to remember that we are “called unto holiness.” Christ is sacrificed, and this is the time of “feast of the unleavened.”R.T.

1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8

Keeping the Christian feast of the unleavened.

Give, in introduction, a careful description of the old Passover. Observe especially that

(1) there was a sacrificed lamb;

(2) that its blood became a protection and a sign;

(3) that the meat of the lamb was partaken of together;

(4) that all the food was unleavened; and

(5) that the loins were girt ready for a journey.

Then show how this old Passover may be regarded as realized in the Christian feast.

1. Jesus is the slain Lamb.

2. His blood is the Church’s protection and sign.

3. His truth and lovethat is, he himselfis the Church’s food.

4. The spirit in which we share our Divine food is that of sincerity and truth, which is represented by the “unleavened.”

5. We share as those who belong to the heavenly, and therefore say, “This is not our rest.” Press that the presence of the leavened, the guileful, and the sinner spoils the simplicity and purity of our Christian feast.R.T.

1Co 5:9-13

The Christian law of association with evil.

Two points require to be illustrated and enforced.

I. COMMON, EVERY DAY LIFE ASSOCIATIONS WITH EVIL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED, in

(1) family;

(2) business;

(3) society.

Yet in all these the earnest Christian need never find it difficult to make a firm witness for truth, righteousness, and charity.

II. SPECIAL RELATIONS OF FRIENDSHIP WITH EVIL WE MAY NOT MAKE. We may not

(1) for our own sake;

(2) for such friends’ sake;

(3) for the sake of others who may observe our friendship, and, above all,

(4) for Christ’s sake, who said, through his servant, “Come out from among them, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.”R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Co 5:1. It is reported commonly Whoever reads attentively 2Co 1:20.ii. 11 will easily perceive that the last verse of the preceding chapter is an introduction to the just act of discipline which St. Paul was going to exercise among them, though absent, as if he had been present; and therefore that verse ought properly to begin the present chapter. The writers of the New Testament seem to use the Greek word , which we translate fornication, in the same sense that the Hebrews do , zebut, which we also translate by the same word; though it is certain both these words in Sacred Scripture have a larger sense; for zebut among the Hebrews, signified uncleanness, or any flagitious scandalous crime. That the intermarrying of a son-in-law and a mother-in-law was not prohibited by the laws of the Roman empire, may be seen in Tully; but yet it was looked on as so scandalous and infamous, that it had never any countenance from practice. Tully’s words in his oration, Pro Clutentio, arestrikingly agreeable to the present case, “Nubit genero focrus nullis hospitiis, nullis auctoribus, O scelus incredibile, et praeter hanc unam, in omni vita inauditum!” Dr. Whitby thinks that the scandalous stories which were generally told among the heathensoftheincestuouspracticesoftheprimitiveChristians, had their original from the misrepresentation of the fact mentioned in this verse. So fatal is the allowance of open sin in any church which pleads for experimental religion. See Act 15:19; Act 15:41. Locke, Hammond, Whitby, and Grotius de Jure B. et P. lib. 2 : 100: 5.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

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.

] means simply in general, in universum , as in 1Co 6:7 , 1Co 15:29 , Mat 5:34 , and in Greek writers; it belongs to , so that to the general expression . there corresponds the particular ., sc [748] . The latter, however, is something worse than the former, hence the 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 . Rckert 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 . This is arbitrary, and even in point of logic doubly incorrect, because here introduces the report of a quite special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization ; and because, if the restrictive would have been better in this passage, Paul in using the generalizing must have expressed himself illogically .

] not: as occurring among you (comp Ewald), for it is a defining statement which belongs to ; 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 Chloe’s 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!

.] , 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; Saalschtz, 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] ).

] i.e. , 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 ), , Chrysostom. The departure from the usual arrangement of the words, too, , puts an emphasis of ignominy upon .

] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Rckert, 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 is never used in the N. T. in such sense as that of the well-known (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 , 1Co 5:2 , and , 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 (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 . . . . [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 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 marriage if the offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of his own accord would 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 (see Introd. 1); and partly by remembering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or which is more likely a 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; Lbkert 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] . . . .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

1Co 5:1-8 . Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in the church .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XA 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 fathers 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 : 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 , fornication, but as an adverb to , 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, .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: ; 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, .[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 by, 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 Churcha holy people.That one has his fathers wife, i.e., his step-mother ()comp. Lev 18:7-8and this either as wife, or concubine. The word , 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 (: having done, 1Co 5:2; and : having perpetrated, 1Co 5:3).7 By the expressionhis fathers 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 (), 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 prter 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 , ye is emphatic, and points back to , among you, q. d. such a thing has occurred among you, and you are, etc. Questions of this sort are often introduced by , 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 notwhen ye first knew of the crimerather mourni.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 indicates the act, expressed by the present, as past and finished, as in 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? .The 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 itselfan 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, 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, .The puts Paul in strong contrast with the Corinthians, who were so indifferent and remiss in the case. If we are to retainof, 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: . 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 , as unauthorized. The sense is clearer without itfor 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 , 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, .(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: . 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., , concerningso Words. Others (Stanley) construe it as the direct object of the verb , 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 in 1Co 5:5, so that the , such a one, would then be merely the resumption of the same object under another form. [We should then translate, putting a colon after , 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 mans 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 , to deliver [Mosheim, Schrader and others], to which Bengel and others also join , as present; or with the participial clause , being assembled [Chrys., Theoph, Calvin]; or they may be connected partly with this and partly with the other, so that either , in the name, etc., shall be joined to , being assembled, and , with the power, to , 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, (, with, designates association, where, however, the co-worker is not a simple instrumentality in the hand of the other; and , 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 Goda realm which, as such, is exempt from the dominion of Satan,were given over again into Satans 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 airas the one that had the power of deathas 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 curedand 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 Gods 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 Pauls 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.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 , which nowhere occurs in the above sense (for which rather the terms ., , , and the like, are used), and from the antithesis made here between flesh and spirit. 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 spiritthe centre of his personalitybeing 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 Satanthe nature and extent of his agency, and his relation to the kingdom of God, see the able articles in Kittos Enc. 2d ed.; Smiths Bib. Diet., under the word Satan, and the one in Hertzogs 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 powerChrist 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 Namea 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 Christs 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. 151183. Edwards Serm. on Excom. Hooker Ec. Pol. Book vi].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[As before we had the picture of a Church imperfectly unitedstill 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 premisesto reprove remissness, and exhort the Church to self purgation, 1Co 5:3-6. The duty of the Church made alive to its disgraceto 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 Gods 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 Gods absolution and Gods 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 Gods. 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 Gods 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 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 with Griesbach, Meyer [Alford, Words.], or with Bckert, Tischendorf. Both are equally suited to the sense, and are about equally supported.

[3]1Co 5:2.The Rec. is still less authorized than 1Co 5:1, and no doubt originated out of 1Co 5:13.

[4]1Co 5:3.The Rec. as, before , 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 (), or, as not suited to , as admarginated, and then afterwards inserted according to the analogy of . 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 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 (Tisch.) as well as the addition after and of after 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 mans 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 deliverthe 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 Owens 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 form, but as extraordinary, and based upon that plenitude of power which he had as an Apostle.]

[11]Klings refutation of Rckerts 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.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The Apostle here enters upon the Subject of Reproof. He very sweetly introduceth the Example of Christ, and speaks of Him as the Passover. The Chapter concludes with Exhortations.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(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. (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. (3) 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. (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To 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.

It is well worthy the Reader’s observation, as he enters upon the perusal of this chapter, how much disposed the corrupt part of our fallen nature is, to oppose and interrupt the renewed part, in all her progress in grace. Satan is well aware, that he hath no opportunity so effectual, to harass and distress the soul of a child of God, but by his enticements of the body. He, therefore, allures the flesh with its corruptions and lusts, to bring on a coldness in spiritual exercises. And, if he can but accomplish his devilish purpose, by interrupting the soul’s access to the throne, his object is soon effected, in drawing off the mind that fleshly pursuits may be the more easily followed. Oh! what a deadness have some precious souls at times found on this account?

It should seem, from what is here said, that some one of no small rank in the Church, on account of gifts and abilities, had fallen into a foul offence of an unnatural and forbidden connection, even to the marrying his Father’s wife. And the Church was so elated with the services of this man that they absolutely overlooked in the preacher, the shameful conduct of his life.

The Apostle was now at Philippi, from whence, as we learn at the conclusion of this Epistle, he wrote it to the Church at Corinth. His absence, however, did not lessen his Apostolic authority, nor, his zeal for the Lord’s service. And he, therefore, in a sharp and decided manner, passeth judgment upon the person so offending. The sentence is remarkable, and deserves our attention. The offender was to be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Various have been the opinion of different Commentators on this remarkable sentence. But I confess, that to my view, it appears to mean nothing more, than that this incestuous person should be for a time deprived the privilege of Church communion. And this, indeed, properly speaking, was a delivery to Satan, and to a child of God most painfully afflicting. And I am the more inclined to this opinion, because it was the act of the Church. Paul passed the sentence, by directing, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, what should be done; but the Church, when gathered together, was to perform it. And, as the object intended from it was, that while the flesh was mortified, (which, to a man of great abilities, must have been humbling indeed,) the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; this plainly proved, that though this man had fallen into this foul offence, yet was he still considered by the Apostle as a child of God.

As the subject is truly interesting, I would take occasion therefrom, to offer an observation or two upon it, which, if the Lord be pleased to bless, may be rendered profitable.

It is very evident, from the Apostle’s statement of this man’s case, that he considered the spirit and the flesh in this instance, as in the Apostle’s general method of explaining this subject, as in opposition to one another. And this I beg may be noticed as an additional proof, that when a child of God is renewed by regeneration, it is the spirit only which is quickened, the body remains the same. The old man, as it is called, the body of sin is wholly unrenewed. Grace makes no alteration here. No part of it is sanctified. So that, while at the new birth or regeneration, the spirit is quickened and made a partaker of the divine nature, and can die no more; and being united to Christ, and part of Christ, and interested in all that belongs to Christ, is as holy in Christ’s holiness, as it ever will be to all eternity; the body is the same mass of corruption as it derived from Adam in the fall; the sin generated in the Adam-nature, hath its subsistence in the flesh, and will remain until corruption puts on incorruption, and mortal puts on immortality.

Now it is the blessed state of a renewed soul, to be brought into such a sweet communion and fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, by the gracious influences of the Holy Ghost; that when the Lord the Spirit hath quickened, and made a child of God a new creature in Christ Jesus, his spiritual part is daily, hourly, aiming through grace, to crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts. Hence, the everlasting warfare in every renewed mind between the flesh and the spirit, between corruption and grace. And it would be well, if every child of God, when brought out of a state of nature, was made sensible of this. He is renewed but in part. He still carries about with him a body of sin and death, which interrupts but too often, his soul’s desires and pursuits. And, although, through the divine strength imparted to him, he is enabled, and not unfrequently, to keep down, and restrain, and mortify the old man; yet, daily he knows and feels to his sorrow, that sin and sinful corruptions still retain their dwelling place in the flesh, and which compel him to confess with Paul, that when he would do good, evil is present with him. And, although, he delights in the law of God after the inward man; yet he sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin which is in his members, Rom 7:21 to the end.

Such being evidently the case, and which induceth continual soul exercises, and deep groans, at times, in the hearts of the Lord’s people: it hath been questioned, and in great humbleness of enquiry; wherefore is it, that since sin is so offensive to the Lord, and so loathsome to every renewed child of God, that the Lord should permit such remains of indwelling corruption to continue? Might not the Lord, when renewing the spirit, have made holy the flesh also? Are not our bodies the Lord’s, as well as our souls? Hath not Jesus married both? And will not my body, (saith the child of God,) as well as my soul, be Christ’s forever in the upper world, and in glory with Him forever? How then is it, that I groan daily, being burdened with sinful flesh, when my Lord knoweth how much I long for deliverance, and how easily my Lord, with a word speaking, could make my body as holy as my soul?

These, and the like questions, have arisen in the minds of God’s people, when regeneration-work hath taken place in their souls from the earliest days of the Church, and been brought forward in every generation from age to age. But, after all that hath been said, and after all the earnest cries of the soul, God’s dear children feel the same, and groan at times as deep as ever. Reader! pause over the subject. Depend upon it, the Lord hath a gracious design in all his dispensations, and doth, and will, overrule every event of the present time-state of his Church to his own glory, and his people’s welfare. The Holy Ghost hath said, by his servant the Apostle, that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose, Rom 8:28 . And well we know, that sorrows and afflictions, trials and temptations, wants and weaknesses, in his Almighty hand, minister to this end. And even sin itself, the evil of all evils, though in its very nature and tendency hath everlasting ruin in its deadly fruit; yet like medicine extracted from poison, becomes subservient to the divine glory, when the Lord converts evil into good. Thus the malice of hell, in the ruin of Adam, laid a foundation for the sweetest of all mercies in Christ. Thus the cross of Jesus, when sin brought on his death, became the everlasting salvation and life of his people. And thus all things work together for good to them that love God, and are the called of God. Mark the expression. To them that love God; not that love sin, but hate sin. To them that hate their own bodies, on account of sin, and loath themselves in their own sight. Oh! how a child of God, when fully made acquainted with the plague of his own heart, will hate sin, and hate self, and fly to Christ to seek deliverance from it. Reader! these thorns in the flesh keep souls humble. The consciousness what a mass of evil mingles up with all we say, and all we do, destroys all dependence upon both. And far better is it to be thus humbled in self, that Christ may be all in all, than even if our hearts were more pure, if so be, that this supposed purity made us proud. And how do we sometimes long to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, when any renewed instance of human infirmity makes a child of God go heavily, and in sharp soul distress?

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1Co 5:6-7

The ‘eternal vigilance’ required to maintain not only liberty but purity, should have for its guide a principle just opposite to the principle commonly followed. Most men, alike in public affairs and private business-affairs, assume that things are going right until it is proved they are going wrong; whereas their assumption should be that things are going wrong until it is proved they are going right.

Spencer, Principles of Ethics ( 470).

References. IV. 21. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 296; ibid. vol. x. p. 426; ibid. (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 112; ibid. vol. ix. p. 73. V. 1. J. D. Jones, Elims of Life, p. 220. V. 1, 2. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 203. V. 2. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. ix. p. 15. V. 3-5. Ibid. vol. ii. p. 385. V. 3-6. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. vi. p. 49. V. 5. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 24; ibid. (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 351; ibid. (6th Series), p. 460. V. 6-8. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi. No. 965. V. 7. C. Perren, Revival Sermons in Outline, p. 169. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii. No. 54. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vi. p. 29; ibid. vol. ix. p. 355; ibid. (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 277; ibid. (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 444. V. 7, 8. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. iii. p. 283. W. C. Wheeler, Sermons and Addresses (2nd Series), p. 202. R. M. Benson, Redemption, p. 308. J. Keble, Sermons for Easter to Ascension Day, p. 1. J. H. Holford, Memorial Sermons, p. 56. V. 8. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 83. V. 9. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 236.

1Co 5:9-10

Unless above himself he can

Erect himself, how poor a thing is Man.

‘Unless above himself, how poor a thing; yet, if beyond and outside of his world, how useless and purposeless a thing. This also must be remembered. And I cannot help thinking,’ says Clough, ‘that there is in Wordsworth’s poems something of a spirit of withdrawal and seclusion from, and even evasion of, the actual world’.

References. V. 9-11. Expositor (6th Series), vol. v. p. 107. V. 9-13. Ibid. vol. vi. p. 87. V. 10. Ibid. vol. iii. p. 110; ibid. vol. x. pp. 57, 161.

1Co 5:11

In Fors Clavigera (III. 49) Ruskin, after quoting some facts about the luxury of the wealthy and the violence of the lower classes, breaks out with an appeal to the clergy, and especially the bishops, to obey ‘St. Paul’s plain order in 1Co 5:11 . Let them determine as distinctly what covetousness and extortion are in the rich, as what drunkenness is in the poor. Let them refuse, themselves, and order their clergy to refuse, to go out to dine with such persons; and still more positively to allow such persons to sup at God’s table. And they would 6oon know what fighting wolves meant; and something more of their own pastoral duty than they learned in that Consecration Service, when they proceeded to follow the example of the Apostles in Prayer, but carefully left out the Fasting.’

References. V. 15. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vi. p. 132. V. 19. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. iv. p. 19. V. 21. Ibid. vol. xi. p. 201. V. 23. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 456. VI. 1. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. x. p. 99. VI. 1-11. Ibid. vol. i. p. 273. VI. 2. W. H. Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 248. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 113.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

XVII

THE RELAXATION OF MORALS

1Co 5:1-6:20 .

In the last chapter we considered the revolt against apostolic authority, and now we are to take up another disorder that is a con-sequence of that one the relaxation of morals. It is a settled principle that one sin begets another. In hunting I have sometimes thought that I saw just one quail, but when I flushed him there were two, and sometimes a covey. Longfellow in Hiawatha uses this language: Never stoops the soaring vulture On his quarry in the desert, On the sick or wounded bison, But another vulture, watching From his high aerial lockout, Sees the downward plunge and follows; And a third pursues a second, Coming from invisible ether, First a speck and then a vulture, Till the air is dark with pinions.

That illustrates how sins are gregarious going in troops. I do not believe it is possible for any man or any church to commit a single sin. There are sure to be more than one, if we ever commence at all. It seemed a little thing that they should sin in the way of factions, or that they should sin in the way of revolt against apostolic authority, but these two sins begat this third sin that we are discussing the relaxation of morals.

The case in point is thus referred to in 1Co 5 :

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. And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from ‘among you. For I verily, being absent in the body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to 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. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world; but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fomicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

That is the whole of 1Co 5 . It is a fine thing for preachers of this day when they have a case of discipline that they have express apostolic authority as to how to treat the case. This man’s father had doubtless married the second time, and the son by the first wife took his wife away from the father, i.e., took his stepmother. Paul says, “Ye are puffed up . . . your glorifying is not good.” They had written to him saying very complimentary things about themselves that they were doing fine. He didn’t agree with them, not with such disorder as this on hand, and the other disorders that have been discussed.

He tells what to do. He says, “This man must be taken away from among yourselves.” The church must do that as a proof that it is a church action. He says, “When you are gathered together,” and in the second letter we find that what was done in obedience to this letter was done by a majority vote. So that here is a case that unmistakably calls for church action. Offenses of this kind must not be committed in the church of Jesus Christ, and the injunction is peremptory that the church must withdraw fellowship in such cases.

The next thing besides this church action was apostolic action. Paul could do what the church could not do what no other preacher except an apostle could do that is, he could deliver such a one over to Satan. They had accused him of not exercising his apostolic power, and he proposes if they do not heed that, he will use his power. He had the power from Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, but the spirit would be saved in the day of Jesus Christ.

We want to understand what that means. It shows that this sin in the church may be by a Christian, and that delivering him to Satan is not his ultimate destruction, but the destruction of his flesh, that his soul may be saved in the day of Jesus Christ. It is necessary that we understand what this means. We find in the book of Job that God turns Job over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, and grievous sores came on him, but it was not that Job might be destroyed by the devil. God says to the devil, “Touch not his life.” We see the case of the apostles when Jesus says, “Simon, Satan hath obtained you apostles by asking that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” Satan came up to Christ and asked that he might deal with them as wheat, and if they were wheat the sifting would help them, and so even this remarkable case of sifting was not done to destroy the offending brother, but to gain him; and there are some cases that cannot be gained except by stern, prompt discipline.

All over the country we have churches that are suffering for the lack of just that thing, and they are injuring these church sinners. I will illustrate: Suppose in the jungles of Africa a company of people and animals were camped for the night, and they built a stockade to keep off wild beasts, and some of the animals, a cow perhaps, gets unmanageable and bellows and butts around and tries to get out. They turn her out, and let her hear the lion roar, and she wants to get back. The thought is that the one that won’t be quiet in good company should be showed that there is worse company on the outside. I heard an old Baptist preacher say, “If you put a wild hog in a pen and he goes to squealing, let him out, and he will strike for the woods and never come back, because he is a hog. But if a sheep is turned out it will bleat around the gate until you open the pen and let the sheep come back on good behavior.” If a man is not a converted man he ought not to be in there; let the hog out and let him strike for the woods; if he is a sheep and hears the lion roar he will bleat around to get back, and he will behave himself next time.

The primary object, if a converted man, is to save him; and the second is to purify the church, and this Paul proceeds to argue. He says, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us.” Here he uses an Old Testament illustration the preparation for the Passover. Before the Passover was observed there was the preparation for the Passover. The houses were inspected, the walls were scraped lest there was something left, and leprosy would leave particles sticking to the wall. They were going to keep the feast, and Paul says, “Christ, our Passover Lamb, is sacrificed for us.” In other words, “We have a feast to keep the Lord’s Supper and in order that we may keep that feast let us examine ourselves and see if we be in the faith. Let us inspect our hearts and our lives, because the law is, with the man that is living disorderly, ye must not eat.” It does not refer to a common meal. It refers to the Lord’s Supper, and the one in disorder may not rightfully partake of the Lord’s Supper. Henry Ward Beecher boasted that in his church there never had been a case of discipline since it was organized. Not that it was a pure church, for it was very impure; never having discipline in it, they had no standard of doctrine and no standard of life. And the first case that ever came up was Beecher himself, and they will bring us up if we, as pastors of churches, are forever silent on the subject of discipline.

Paul now explains. He says, “I wrote you a letter.” It was not preserved. It was not necessary to preserve every one of his letters. John says if everything that Jesus said and did had been preserved the world would not hold the books. But enough is preserved to form a guide for God’s people. He continues: “And in that letter I wrote you not to keep company with fornicators, and ye misunderstood me.” He says, “I did not mean that with respect to the world, for that would mean for you to go out of the world; when I said to keep no company and not eat, I meant with a man who is called a brother; if such a one be a fornicator or an adulterer you are to judge those that are within. What have ye to do with those that are within? What have ye to do with those that are without?” He is showing over whom the church has authority to exercise discipline not outsiders, but insiders.

The next disorder is in 1Co 6:1 : “Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life? If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church? I say this to move you to shame. What? Cannot there be found among you a wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.”

This is a remarkable declaration. I will discuss it a little in order to make an impression on the minds of young preachers, for we have almost gone astray on it in our religious life. There isn’t a country or a community in the state that some members in the church do not violate that law, and they say they are not heathen. That is not Paul’s point at all. His point is that the saints have the highest Judicatory power vested in them that they will judge the world and the angels. It is simply a question of two courts the church-court or the world-court. Which will we take? To which court are we going to appeal the case? That is what he is discussing. This is illustrated in my book, Baptists and Their Doctrines, which gives a view of the world-court and the church-court.

He brings up the following points on this discussion: First, that God had placed the judicatory power in the church, as our Lord says, “If any man sin, go right along and convict him of his sin. You have gained the brother.” He does not say, “If any member of the church sin against you, whether it is a personal or a public offense, and you know it, you go right along and convict him of that sin. If you fail, take two of the brethren with you; if he will not hear them, tell it to the human court.” No, tell it to the church. There is the judicatory court that Christ established. Here comes up a difference between two brethren on a matter of business. A says that B owes him $100. B denies it. Shall A go to law with B? A starts to go to law and a third man, G, comes to him and says, “A, you are committing an offense; you are doing wrong,” and A refuses to hear C, and C goes off and gets D and E, and A won’t yield. Then if C, D and E come before the church and say, “We are not judging as to the merits in the case; we do not say A is doing wrong in going to law, but we do say A is doing wrong in the kind of court he goes to.” Who shall be the arbitrator? A says that he won’t listen to the church; B may owe A that $100, we don’t deny that. Here A denies the jurisdiction of Jesus Christ. Suppose A says, “I will hear the church,” and the case is put on its merits. Paul says (and the revised version puts an entirely new sense on it), “If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the church?” In other words, “Is that the way you are going to do? When the case comes up between A and B) are you going to select people that are no account? Haven’t you got some disinterested party? Are you going to select a committee of B-partisans, or of A-partisans?” The common version does not give that sense at all. It says, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you?”

We come now to the case that will prevent final church action: Suppose you say to A, “Are you willing to leave this matter to a disinterested committee of brethren as to what are the merits of your question? They do not want to say B robbed you, and they do not want to say you harmed B; are you willing for a third disinterested party to take it up and bring it up on the merits of the case before you get to final church action?”

There is a passage upon which I preached one sermon, “Jesus the Arbiter of the Nations.” I preached it on the occasion of the meeting of The Hague Conference. It shows even in matters of diplomacy that it is better to settle the matter by arbitration than to go to war. In the millennium there will be no war because Jesus is the arbiter between the nations. If that is to take place on a scale in which nations are involved, why cannot we find in the church a small committee of wise and disinterested brethren that will look into the case and settle it without ever going to final church action? But suppose this committee does not settle the case. They say, “Brethren, we have tried to settle it, and here it is before the church. The question is, does B owe A this $100? If he does he ought to pay it; if he does not, A ought not to worry about it.” If a man won’t let his brethren settle these matters for him, what is he going to do at the judgment? He presents a case; he says that rather than go to an outsider why not say, “I will just bear this wrong.” Well, but suppose they defrauded him?

I have been defrauded many a time, more than once since I moved to Fort Worth. Why should I parade before outsiders my case?

The saddest case in the Texas affairs of our denomination illustrates that. Here we had a brother, very prominent, who kept bringing cases before the General Convention of Texas, and every time he would bring it they decided against him. He would not let it stay undecided. Finally, he took the case into court, and if any man was ever present one day when that case was on trial and heard the infidel lawyers and the lawyers of other denominations gloat over the Baptist trouble, he would never forget it. Suppose that man had had the sounds preserved in a graphophone, and had that in his family, and when any one would come to see him he would have that instrument to reproduce those vile sentences against our very best men? Oh, it was infamous! Of course it ruined that man. It didn’t ultimately hurt the other men, but it surely killed the man that resorted to it.

Paul then announces a fundamental principle. He is discussing the point whether a fornicator or adulterer should be retained in the church, and he says, “Know ye not that a fornicator, an adulterer, a covetous man shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven?” He will be excluded there certainly; he will never get in; the gates will be barred. In other words, Christianity is designed to be a maker of character. If it does not make a man better than he was before, it is not worth anything; ‘if it does not make a father a better father, a mother a better mother, a sister a better sister, a brother a better brother, a child a better child if there is no improvement in the character of the man, then we may be sure that he has never been born again, because the Spirit does not produce that kind of fruit. And Paul says that the fruits of the flesh are manifest. Then he tells what they are and says that the fruits of the Spirit are manifest. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” says Jesus.

And then again they were liable to misunderstand. He says, “I don’t mean that the murderer never gets to heaven; I don’t mean that men who were fornicators never get to heaven, for such were some of you. You belonged to that very crowd, but ye were washed; the Holy Spirit took you in charge; you desired to obey God, not to disobey him.”

In other words, the Holy Spirit is greater than total depravity. It can overcome total depravity, because total depravity is of the first birth; but this being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit makes one of another seed, of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever.

And the murderer can be saved, as thousands of them have been saved. It was the greatest triumph of Christianity to look upon that Corinthian crowd. All the depths of infamy through which some of them had passed could not be named in a mixed audience, but by the power of God they were washed, and they lived, and one of the most remarkable cases as bearing upon it, is the case of the celebrated Augustine. His mother was a saint, and she loved her wild, wayward boy. It seemed that the bridle had been taken off, and the devil was riding him “bareback” down to hell. He, after his conversion, often referred to the shameless infamies he committed. This is a case worthy of consideration. Everyone ought to read Augustine’s confessions. He did not keep on living that life after he was converted; he was one of the greatest preachers that ever lived. What we call Calvinism is the doctrine of Augustine. He saved the church for 300 years from going astray. So Paul says, “Such were some of you; but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified.”

He comes now to something more difficult. He is discussing this debasing sin of fornication, and says, “Every sin that a man doeth is without the body (except this one).” Now instead of sin’s residing in the body and corrupting the spirit, it is the spirit that sins and corrupts the body. Envy, that is not a bodily sin; hate, that is not a bodily sin; malice, that is not a bodily sin; pride, presumption, every sin that a man commits is apart from his body except fornication. There the body is made the instrument of the sin. And Paul brings up this argument, “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you?” Generally when he refers to the temple, he refers to a church, as he says to this church, “Ye are God’s building, ye are the temple of God,” and where he says, “Every separate congregation groweth up into the holy temple of God, a habitation of the Spirit,” but in this particular case he makes the body of the Christian a temple of the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit enters into him and dwells in him, and if he dwells in him, then the body is the temple in which he dwells.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the relation between the revolt against apostolic authority and the relaxation of morals?

2. Illustrate how sins are gregarious.

3. What is the case of discipline discussed in 1Co 5 ?

4. What relation did this man sustain to the woman whom he took?

5. What church action did Paul prescribe?

6. What apostolic action in this case, what illustration from the Old Testament, and what one also from the New Testament?

7. What is the object of correction discipline in the church member, and what illustration given?

8. What is the object relative to the church, what Paul’s argument, what Old Testament illustration, and what the New Testament application?

9. What is the meaning and application of 1Co 5:11 ?

10. What is the meaning and application of 1Co 5:12-13 ?

11. What is the fourth ecclesiastical disorder, and where discussed?

12. What of the prevalence of this sin?

13. What is Paul’s argument against this disorder?

14. What is Christ’s direction in such cases?

15. Describe a typical case of “going to law” scripturally.

16. In case a proper adjustment cannot be made, what does Paul recommend?

18. What fundamental principle does Paul enunciate in this connection?

19. What is the design of Christianity?

20. What Paul’s teaching elsewhere on this point, and what does Christ say also?

21. What is the character of the Corinthians before hearing the gospel, and what their character afterwards?

22. What remarkable case of this transformation cited, and what is Calvinism.?

23. What is the meaning of “Every sin that a man doeth is without the body . . .” and what the application?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 13 .] CONCERNING A GROSS CASE OF INCEST WHICH HAD ARISEN, AND WAS HARBOURED, AMONG THEM ( 1Co 5:1-8 ): 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. 1Co 4:21 ; and it furnishes an instance of those things which required his apostolic discipline.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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

. ] another way of saying . , the character of is borne (by some) among you, fornication is borne as a character among you . From missing this sense of , Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to , rendering it ‘ commonly ,’ to suit , ‘ is reported ,’ (2) as to , joining it with , whereas it belongs to , (3) as to . ., see below.

. . ] And fornication of such a sort (the rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of before it; so Aristoph. Ran. 116, , ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a character) even among the heathen . The of the rec. is a clumsy gloss, probably from Eph 5:3 ; the meaning being, that not even among the heathen does any one 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 in such cases universally in the N. T. signifying to possess in marriage : and Meyer remarks that ( 1Co 5:2 ), and ( 1Co 5:3 ) 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 ; , , 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 prter 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 ; and from the Apostle saying there that he did not write on his account , he was probably a Christian.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 5:1 . . . .: “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 , as in 1Co 11:18 , but the impersonal ( cf. , Mar 2:1 ), indicating common report in the Church ( ), and ( : see parls.) undoubted fact . signifies any immoral sexual relation, whether including (as in Mat 5:32 ) or distinguished from (Mat 15:19 ) .

The sin is branded as of unparalleled blackness by the description, . . .: “Yes, and a fornication of such sort” the climactic “as (there is) not even among the Gentiles!” While mere 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 . , of quality (as in 1Co 3:17 ), in place of the regular correlative (1Co 15:48 ). Neither (T.R.) nor is understood in the ellipsis, simply “such as does not exist”; the exceptional heathen instances are such as to prove the rule. The actual sin is finally stated: . . ., “as that one ( or a certain one) should have a wife of his father”. defines the quality, (with inf [803] ) the content and extent of the . . (instead of ) is the term of Lev 18:8 . indicates a continued association, whether in the way of formal marriage or not; nor does (1Co 5:2 ), nor (1Co 5:3 ), make clear this latter point. That “the father” was living is not proved by the 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.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1 Corinthians Chapter 5

Grave reason there was why the apostle should speak of such an alternative as “a rod.” For the assembly at Corinth had at present no happy name, if common rumour were true.

“Universal report is of fornication among you, and such fornication as [is] not even among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who hath done this deed might be taken out of the midst of you.” (Vers. 1, 2.) It was distressing enough that so monstrous an evil should have found an entrance in the assembly of God. But what grieved the apostle most – as well it might – was the tolerance of the offender in their midst. The assembly cannot hinder a Christian from falling into the worst scandal, but it is bound to deal with evil as identified with Christ before God and man. Here below this is the reason of its being. It is the temple of God, as he had urged in chapter 3 for a warning against trashy and corrupting theories; but if that holy habitation of God through the Spirit be inconsistent with false teaching, certainly and yet more manifestly with immorality. Now there was in their midst grossness beyond the heathen – a brother, so-called, living with his step-mother!

Granted that the Corinthian assembly was young in the knowledge of the Lord, and few, if any, men of spiritual experience were among them. Gifts they had abundantly; but elders are nowhere hinted at, as indeed we know they were not, and could not be, in an infantine state of things. And divine wisdom, I doubt not, selected this state rather than one more mature and fully furnished, in order the better to provide for the exigencies of a day like ours.

But surely the youngest saints ought at least to have been appalled at such sin where God’s Spirit dwelt. They might have had no special teaching on discipline, nor previous cases of evil, while the apostle was with them. But why did they not mourn that he who had wrought such evil in the assembly might be taken away? Humiliation and prayer are the resource of those who feel a wrong, and know not yet the remedy: and the Lord would have acted for them, or given them to act for Him. Instead of this they were “puffed up” – a grievous aggravation of the mischief. I will not go so far as to assume that the offender was one of those, of whom they were proud, and who helped the carnal multitude to carp at the apostle; but it seems plain enough that the self-exalting doctrine and the bad morality went together in his mind. Had they allowed into their hearts the germ of that unholy idea, so rife in modern and even evangelical circles, that the evil of another is not to be judged, but each is solely to judge himself? It is to the destruction of God’s glory in the church. For what can more directly strike at all common union in good, all corporate responsibility for evil? Where such thoughts are suffered, it is plain that the presence of the Holy Ghost is either ignored or forgotten; for no believer will deliberately say that He can be a partner of iniquity, and this He must be if evil is known and unjudged where He dwells.

Seriously, as one familiar with the presence of God, and not like those whose self-esteem or vanity led them to evil in the assembly, does the apostle speak. It was that power of God in which he would have acted if present. “For I, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, in the name of our Lord Jesus [Christ], ye and my spirit being gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus [Christ], [concerning] him that so wrought this – to deliver such an one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (Ver. 3-5.)

It thoroughly fell within the province of the apostle to help the church at such an emergency, as indeed it was his joy at all times. For an apostle regulated and governed, and in this differed from such as were prophets without being apostles. But here was the assembly at Corinth, his own children in the faith, ensnared into the grossest dishonour on the Lord’s name, and withal puffed up, instead of mourning in order that the offender might be removed out of their midst. He proceeds therefore to pronounce the only judgment open to such a case. “For I,* absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present [concerning] him that so wrought this.” The best authorities thus give the sense. “As” comes in to modify the second “present,” not the first, which is sufficiently qualified by “in spirit,” contrasted with “absent in body.” In the second case the very reverse is intended, and “as” is indispensable (for he means as if actually there), whereas in the first it would be improper. He then shows the authority for, and manner of, dealing with the person: “in the name of our Lord Jesus (ye being gathered, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus), to deliver such an one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

* A B C Dp.m. six cursives, Pesch. Syr. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. with ancient Greek and Latin fathers, omit before “absent in body.”

The grammar seems a little harsh, but it is in order to give special prominence to the guilty person, who follows as . .

A, etc., raise a question as to here.

This has been confounded, especially since Calvin’s time, with excommunication. But delivering to Satan is power here associated with the assembly, as the conferring of a gift is in 1Ti 4:14 with imposition of the hands of the elderhood. In both cases the result hinges on apostolic power. But the absence of this in no way enfeebles the duty of putting away the guilty professor, as is carefully laid down in verse 13

Our Lord indeed had Himself set forth the principle in Mat 18 , and provided for its maintenance in the worst of times. He had put the assembly as the last resort, even for a case which began with an individual trespass; for I do not doubt, spite of the omission of , “against thee,” in verse 15 (according to the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts, supported by three cursives, etc.), that they are genuine, resting as they do on most ample ancient authority, and falling in exactly with the context, which is embarrassed by the omission – an omission easily accounted for by the similarity of their sound in a Greek’s mouth to the last two syllables of the preceding word. If the matter then were told to the assembly, and the offender should not heed it, “let him be to thee as the heathen and the tax-gatherer.” But the Lord gives what is general and abiding: “Verily, I say to you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This goes beyond the enforcement or removal of a sentence on evil to the more general authority of the assembly as acting for Christ. Next, He shows the efficacy of its united prayer, even if but two agreed in asking: “Again, I say to you, that if two of you agree on the earth about whatever they may ask, it shall come to them from my Father that is in the heavens;” and this on a ground which takes in not merely a meeting for judicial decision or prayer but every assembly of the church as such: “for where two or three are gathered together to my name, there am I in the midst of them.” For the authority of the assembly or the validity of its action in these matters of practice and conduct depends, not in any way on its numbers or the weight of the persons composing it, but on Christ who guarantees His presence where but two or three are gathered together to His name.

This is clearly urged by the apostle in verse 4. If Satan had sought to alienate the Corinthians from Paul, he at least joins himself in spirit with them, as gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus, in His name to deliver the incestuous Corinthian to Satan. If flesh had been indulged shamelessly, flesh must be galled and broken to pieces under the adversary’s hand, but for good in the end at any rate – “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” In fact, as the second epistle shows, the discipline was blessed to him in this world also; but the end specified cannot fail for all born of God, whatever may be the hindrances here, or the particular shape of God’s dealing with the soul. For there is a sin unto death, and in such a case to make request of God would be an error. In the present instance it was not so; awful as the sin was: and the man not only did not fall asleep, but was brought to the deepest abasement and grief, and the apostle called on the saints to forgive, as doubtless they did.

As yet the Corinthians had no sense how they themselves were implicated in this frightful evil, and, what is more important, how the Lord’s name was compromised by it. On the contrary they were high-minded, and levity prevailed. “Therefore,” says the apostle, “your boasting [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened. For also our passover, Christ, was sacrificed. Wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.” (Ver. 6-8.)

There cannot be a more serious principle for the practical and public walk of the church. Evil is here presented under the symbol of leaven. Not only may it exist among saints, but its nature is to work, spread, and assimilate the mass to itself. The apostle insists that it shall never be tolerated. Here it is moral evil, in Galatians doctrinal; and of the two the latter is the more insidious, because more specious. It does not shock the conscience so immediately, or strongly, if at all. To the natural mind evil doctrine is but a difference of opinion, and the generous heart shrinks from proscribing a man for an opinion however erroneous. The church stands on wholly different ground, because it stands in Christ on high and has the Holy Ghost dwelling in it here below. No assembly can guarantee itself against the entrance of evil, but every assembly of God is bound not to tolerate it. When evil is known, the church is bound to put it away. Elsewhere we may find details in dealing with it. There are those who may be specially fitted not only to discern but to apply moral power, and they are responsible to act faithfully to Christ whose the church is. It is no question, where known evil is persisted in, of exercising compassion, still less of cloaking it. This would be connivance with Satan against the Lord, and the ruin, not only of the individual already ensnared, but of the assembly. When the assembly knows evil, and either forbears to judge through indifference, or (still worse) refuses it when appealed to according to the word of God, it is playing false to the name of the Lord, and can no longer be regarded as God’s assembly after adequate means to arouse have failed.

Bad as the state of things in Corinth was, the evil had arrived at no such footing as yet. It was humbling that their consciences were not yet wakened up beyond perhaps individuals, who communicated facts to the apostle or others who sympathised with their uneasiness. The mass, if they knew, acted as if they knew not, and were proud and puffed up instead of being abased in sorrow but in prayer to God. So early did the notion creep in that sin in the church belongs only to those directly guilty, that it does not involve all, and that the Lord Himself forbids others to judge, commanding tares and wheat to grow together till the harvest. Is it needful to expose such unholy and ignorant sophistry? “The field is the world,” not the church.

Now comes the grave warning of the apostle in Christ’s faithful love to the church. The tolerance of evil in any part vitiates the whole. It virtually commits the Holy Ghost to the sanction of what God hates. No interpretation can be more contrary to the spirit of the apostle’s admonition than that which supposes that the whole is only leavened when every part is saturated with the leaven. It is really meant that a little leaven gives its character to the whole lump. Even the late Dean Alford (though far from sound generally in doctrine, strict in ecclesiastical principle, or firm for the glory of Christ) speaks incomparably better than those brethren who debase the holy name of love to mean license for their friends or themselves. “That this is the meaning,” says he, “and not ‘that a little leaven will if not purged out leaven the whole lump,’ is manifest from the point in hand, namely, the inconsistency of their boasting: which would not appear by their danger of corruption hereafter, but by their character being actually lost. One of them was a fornicator of a fearfully depraved kind, tolerated and harboured: by this fact the character of the whole was tainted.”* (Comment on 1Co 5 )

* The italics are the Dean’s. I quote his words in no way as authoritative, but as a just rebuke of an unholy principle and aim by one who might be thought rather disposed to palliate evil. Much more guilty are those who should know and do better.

The apostle therefore charges them to purge out the old leaven, that they might be fresh dough, “according as ye are unleavened.” This is of high importance. The saints are unleavened, not merely ought to be. Their practical conduct is grounded on their standing. All efforts to deny the purity of the church are from the enemy. The apostle, writing even to the Corinthians, reminds them of this, and insists upon it. He recalls them to what God’s grace had done for them. He rouses their conscience to act consistently with and for Christ. Never does he think of allowing sin, because saints have the old man as well as the new. Was not the old man crucified with Christ? If God has already executed sentence upon it, there is no excuse for allowing it. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set every believer free. Not only has he a new nature, but the Holy Ghost to work in it by the word and grace of Christ. They were unleavened then and must purge out the old leaven. The very object of God was to form the church in purity for Christ and according to Christ in this world, and the responsibility of the saints is to walk individually and corporately according to Him. His word makes His will plain.

But the figure of an unleavened lump at once recalls Christ as the true paschal lamb, and the consequent putting away of sin by His sacrifice. This deepens the ground on which the apostle demands that sin should be judged by the saints if through unwatchfulness any one had fallen into sin and repented not. The feast of unleavened bread was bound up with the passover, as every Israelite knew. This is turned to practical account here. “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.” There might be new forms of evil besides those of old habits and associations. But as. all leaven had to be shut out by the Jew, so the Christian is solemnly called to deal unsparingly with evil in every shape.

Further, it seems to me of some importance to remark that this does not mean only at the table of the Lord on His day. The seven days of the Jewish institution represent the whole term of our stay on earth; and the celebration of the feast covers therefore the full time of each here below. Nothing inconsistent with Christ morally is tolerable in the Christian, and this not now and then but continuously. Such is the teaching of these types which the New Testament unveils and enforces. Beyond doubt the true light now shines. Redemption, far from allowing of sins in the redeemed, is the basis of holiness, and all evil was only then fully judged when Christ our passover was crucified. Before that how much was borne with because of the hardness of men’s hearts! Now that it has been condemned in the cross of Christ and consequently in grace to the believer, we are told to yield our members servants to righteousness unto holiness. Freed from sin and become servants to God we have our fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life. Anything short of this is not Christianity.

The apostle now lays down the direction of the Lord as to unworthy confessors of His name in the assembly. Those at Corinth did not know how such should be dealt with; but why did they not at least pray and mourn? Why were they puffed up?

” I have written to you in the epistle not to mix with fornicators;* not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or the covetous and rapacious, or idolatrous, since [in that case] ye must go out of the world. But now I have written to you, if any one called a brother be* a fornicator, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, not to mix with [him], with such an one not even to eat. For what [is it] to me to judge those without? Do ye not judge those within? But those without God judgeth. Put|| out the wicked person from among your own selves.” (Vers. 9-18.)

* The best MSS. ( p.m. A B C D E Fp.m. 17, 46, 93, vv. and father.) omit , which T. R. puts with L P, etc., some vv. and ff.

in A B C Dp.m. F G P and some cursives, for , as in T. R

* Elz., Steph. several uncials and vv.

A B C F, etc. VV. omit kaiv.

L and many more, Bc. P, etc.

|| here D3 L, contrary to A B C Dp.m. F G P, etc.

There appears no sufficient reason a priori, why an inspired apostle might not have written an epistle which God meant to lapse after accomplishing its end, without filling a constant place in the scriptures. Hence there would be no difficulty, to my mind, if allusion were here made to an epistle of Paul which was never included in the canon. But where is the evidence that this is the fact, or that any other epistle is here intended than the one he is writing? In the latter case, the tense used would be what is called the epistolary aorist. It is in vain then to say, “not this present epistle,” which the phrase means as naturally as a former letter which has not come down to us. (Compare Rom 16:22 ; Col 4:16 ; 1Th 5:27 ; 2Th 3:14 .) Indeed 2Co 7:8 is the only instance that exemplifies a reference to a former letter, as the context necessitates, where the contrast is plain between the two letters. But there is nothing of the sort to determine here. As the usage the other way is far more frequent, so the sense is excellent, if we understand the actual epistle we have to be in view. The notion of a previous letter involves the inference that the present is a correction of their misunderstanding of a former command of his as regards keeping company with fornicators; but this appears gratuitous. So is the idea that there must be something in the preceding part of this epistle bearing on the point; for it is quite sufficient for the passage that he should be so instructing them now. That he must be referring to what went before is simply to deny the epistolary sense of the aorist. Again , far from being irrelevant and superfluous, if he meant the letter in which he was now engaged, is full of force and precision. “I have written to you in [not “an” but] the epistle not to keep company with fornicators.” He was exhorting to this effect now. This he proceeds to qualify: “not absolutely [or in all cases] with the fornicators of this world, or the covetous and rapacious, or idolatrous, since [in that case] ye must go out of the world. But now [or as the case stands] I have written to you not to keep company, if any one called a brother be,” etc. Here the same tense is used for what must be allowed to be what he is going to say in the present epistle; the only serving to distinguish the guarded sentence, a more definite application of the principle in verse 11, from the general statement in verse 9.

In short the apostle is showing that brotherly intercourse is restricted to brethren, and so is discipline: to extend either to men of the world is false ground, and would make intercourse with people at large impossible. Christian companionship, on the other hand, demands purity of life on the part of those who enjoy it. If any one called a brother be impure, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, one is not to mix with him: “with such an one not even to eat.” The meaning is, not that we ought not to take the Lord’s supper, but not to eat the least meal with him. The corrupt or violent professor of Christ is to be avoided even in an ordinary social act, not merely on the most solemn occasion of christian worship.

The closing verses explain why this limitation ought to be. “For what [have] I [to] do with judging those without? Do not ye judge those within? But those without God judgeth. Put out the wicked person from among your own selves.” (Vers 12, 18.) The world is not the sphere of divine judgment as yet, but His children, whom the Father judges without respect of persons, as the church is bound to do. By-and-by the world will be not only judged but condemned. (1Co 11 ) Therefore should the believer so much the more seek to judge himself: else grace would be of ill report, as if seeking to Bloke evil. But even if he fail, the Lord does not, who chastens by a divine judgment that he should not be condemned with the world.

Those without then are not the actual arena for apostolic or church judgment, but those within, as God deals with the rest in due time. The church cannot evade their duty; strong or weak, they must stand clear in this respect before God. The saints may not be able to deliver to Satan, but are bound to put out from among themselves the wicked person. But they are not called on to put out any one who is not “wicked.” There are other steps in discipline which should never be forgotten, as rebuke in some cases, and withdrawment in others. It is false and mischievous that every offender should be thus removed; none should be but the wicked. In their case it is imperative, otherwise communion no longer exists according to Christ. It is not the entrance of the worst possible evil that destroys the character of the assembly, but the deliberate toleration of evil, were it even the least. Only we have to take care in judging that it be done in the word and Spirit of God. Unity that subsists by allowing known evil in its midst is of Satan, and directly opposed to God’s object in His assembly, which is responsible to reflect the character of Christ now in holiness, as it will by-and-by in glory.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 5:1-2

1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

1Co 5:1 “It is actually reported” The English “actually” is the Greek hols, a rare form which occurs in 1 Corinthians several times(cf. 1Co 5:1; 1Co 6:7; 1Co 15:29). It is a form of the term holos, which means “wholly,” “altogether.” This rare form seems to mean “widely known” (cf. NJB). This may have been one of the reasons Paul was so upset over this flagrant immorality. The Corinthian church was glorying in it and it was being widely reported to the other churches. Paul had to deal with this out-of-bounds action and the attitude of this church lest they negatively affect all churches (i.e., the yeast principle, cf. 1Co 5:6-8).

“immorality” This is the Greek term “porneia” which was the general term for sexual looseness. We get the English word, pornography, from this Greek word. Greek Corinth was known for its sexual promiscuity. Even other pagans were shocked by Corinth’s immoral social license. See Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth.

In the OT there is a distinction between the terms “adultery” (i.e., one or both are married) and “fornication” (i.e., neither is married), but this is not the case in Koine Greek (cf. Act 15:20; Act 15:29). This term refers to any sexual impropriety (i.e., adultery, fornication, homosexuality, even beastiality). Here it is a violation of Lev 18:8; Deu 27:20.

“of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles” This incestuous relationship was forbidden by the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev 18:8 and Deu 22:30), but it must have also been shocking even to the immoral pagans of Corinth. This was “too far” even for first century Roman culture (cf. Gaius, Inst. I, 63 and Oxford Classical Dictionary 8, 539-540).

NASB, NKJV”the Gentiles”

NRSV”pagans”

TEV”the heathen”

NJB”Gentiles”

Paul is using this term in a specialized sense. In the OT there was a sharp distinction between Jew and Gentile. The “nations” had negative connotations. Paul is using Gentile in the sense of unbeliever. Many of those he was writing to were non-Jews.

NASB”that someone has his father’s wife”

NKJV”that a man has his father’s wife”

NRSV”for a man is living with his father’s wife”

TEV”that a man is sleeping with his stepmother”

NJB”that one of you is living with his stepmother”

This apparently refers to his living with his step-mother. The man

1. seduced his step-mother away from his father

2. was living with his divorced step-mother

3. was living with his widowed step-mother

1Co 5:2 It is possible to take this verse as (1) three questions; (2) three statements (NASB, NKJV); or (3) a combination (cf. NRSV, TEV, NJB, NIV).

NASB”You have become arrogant”

NKJV”you are puffed up”

NRSV”you are arrogant”

TEV”How then, can you be proud”

NJB”And you are so filled with your own self-importance”

This is a perfect passive participle of the term “puffed up,” used so often in the Corinthian letter (cf. 1Co 4:6; 1Co 4:18-19; 1Co 5:2; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 13:4; 2Co 12:20). It has the “to be” verb linked with it, which makes this a perfect periphrastic, which implies a settled condition. The real problem was the attitude of the church (i.e., plural pronoun and verbs). They were proud of this situation.

This shocking incident has several possible rationales.

1. from the general context it is possible that this was seen by the church as an example of the radical newness which salvation brings

2. it reflects the Jewish background of Rabbi Aqibah illustrating how a new convert was a totally new person (i.e., A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 111), therefore, in the Corinthian setting this was not incest, but Christian freedom (i.e., one’s newness in Christ).

NASB”and have not mourned instead”

NKJV”and have not rather mourned”

NRSV”Should you not rather have mourned”

TEV”On the contrary, you should be filled with sadness”

NJB”It would have been better if you had been grieving bitterly”

This Greek word (i.e., penthe, cf. Mat 5:4; Mat 9:15; 2Co 12:21; Jas 4:9) was used of mourning for the dead (cf. Rev 18:8; Rev 18:11). In Jewish society mourning was done for the dead, for some tragedy, or for blasphemy (cf. Mar 14:63).

NASB”would be removed from your midst”

NKJV”might be taken away from among you”

NRSV”would have been removed from among you”

TEV”should be expelled from your fellowship”

NJB”were turned out of the community”

This is an aorist passive subjunctive. This Greek word means to “lift up and take away,” often involving judgment (cf. Mat 24:39) and destruction (cf. Joh 11:48). The purpose of church discipline is three-fold.

1. cleansing of the local church (i.e., both from sin and the restoration of its image in the local community)

2. the reformation and redemption of erring believers. It is just possible because of 1Co 5:5 (also the same terms are used in Luk 23:18) that this refers to the death of the erring believer(s).

3. other believers seeing God’s discipline are encouraged not to sin

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

reported = heard. Compare Mat 2:3; Mat 4:12. Gal 1:1, Gal 1:23.

commonly = altogether. Greek. holos. Elsewhere, 1Co 6:7; 1Co 15:29. Mat 5:34.

among. App-104.

not so much = not even. Greek. oude.

named. The texts omit. Supply the Ellipsis by “found”. “Named” has been suggested by Eph 5:3.

Gentiles. Greek. ethnos.

one = a certain one. App-123.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-13.] CONCERNING A GROSS CASE OF INCEST WHICH HAD ARISEN, AND WAS HARBOURED, AMONG THEM (1Co 5:1-8): 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. 1Co 4:21; and it furnishes an instance of those things which required his apostolic discipline.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Let’s turn in our Bibles now to I Corinthians, chapter 5.

The Corinthian letter of Paul was mainly corrective. The Corinthian church had innumerable problems. Those from the house of Chloe had reported to Paul many of the situations that did exist there in the Corinthian church. Part of the problem was the divisions that existed within the church as they were dividing off into little sects of sorts, little denominations. “I am of Paul, I am of Peter, I am of Apollos.” And Paul said this was a mark of carnality; Christ was not divided. Those ministers who ministered to them should have had complementary ministries, not competing ministries. And surely we should see the church and the various ministries within the church as complementary rather than competing. I don’t feel that our church is really in competition with any other church, nor should it be in competition with another church. We should be complementary to the other churches, filling up a part of what they are not doing as they fill up a part that we do not do. And thus, the churches should be complementary, never competing. But yet, the Corinthian church had fallen into this competition, little competing groups dividing the body of Christ, the mark of carnality.

Now, with the end of chapter 4, Paul has completed, really, his rebuke concerning the divisions that existed within the church and moves on now to even more serious problems, problems of immorality that did exist within the church.

It is reported commonly ( 1Co 5:1 )

That word “reported commonly” is really “it has been noised abroad,” or “it is common knowledge,”

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 ( 1Co 5:1 ).

So there was in the church of Corinth a man who was living incestuously with his stepmother, his father’s wife. And the Corinthian church was so busy with their little squabbles over “I’m of Cephas, I’m of Paul, I’m of Apollos,” that they allowed this condition to exist within the church. In fact, they almost took pride in the fact that they could tolerate this kind of goings on within the body. They sort of prided themselves in their broadness of view, as, unfortunately, there are some churches that pride themselves in their liberal views today.

You are puffed up ( 1Co 5:2 ),

You’re actually priding yourselves in your liberal attitude towards this condition.

and you have not rather mourned ( 1Co 5:2 ),

Or grieved over this condition that was existing.

that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For though I am absent in my body, I am present in my spirit, and I have already judged, as though I were present, concerning him which has done this deed ( 1Co 5:2-3 ).

I already have made up my mind. I’ve already made my judgment on this situation. And,

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 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 ( 1Co 5:4-5 ).

Jesus said that if your brother sinned against you, that you should go to your brother and deal with him. And if he receives you then you have gained a brother. But if he will not receive you, then you should take some witnesses with you and you should go to him in order that the sin might be dealt with. But if he will not receive then the witnesses, let him be as an outcast, let him be as a heathen or a publican unto you.

The first thought always of the brother in sin within the church is restoration, going first seeking to restore, seeking to bring about a rectifying of the bad situation. Paul exhorted the Galatians, “If a brother be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourselves, lest you also be tempted” ( Gal 6:1 ).

So the first duty concerning that brother who has fallen into sin is going to him in a spirit of meekness, grieving over his situation, seeking to restore him to a proper walk with the Lord. Always, even in the excommunicating, the idea is that of restoration.

So even with this brother, in Paul saying, “I’ve already judged, kick him out. Deliver him over unto Satan that the flesh, not the body, but the flesh, that is, that life after the flesh, might be destroyed.” That by his being excommunicated from the fellowship of the church, he will realize the seriousness of the sin that he is committing, that it is alienating him from the life of the church and the life of Christ within the church.

But even in the putting him out, the idea was to destroy this work of the flesh in order that he might be ultimately restored into the fellowship of the church. And always the ultimate view is that of restoration, for that is the work of Jesus Christ, is to seek and to save that which is lost. And thus is the church, when we have to deal with issues within the church. And there are times here where we have to deal with serious moral problems where we have asked people not to return to Calvary Chapel. “Don’t come back until you’ve taken care of this situation in your life.” But the idea is that of restoration.

Now, just what involves turning them over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, I’m not quite certain. Paul, in writing to Timothy, speaks of a couple of fellows, one Hymeneus, who was really a crummy character, no doubt. And Paul said that he had turned him over to Satan that he might learn not to blaspheme. And so here, putting them outside of the umbrella, the covering of the church, that Satan might really take them on down and let them see the end result of this kind of sin and tolerated sin in their life, or practicing sin in their life. Let them see what it does, let them come to the destruction of the flesh.

You know, sometimes the best cure for adultery is for the person to marry the person they’re involved with. You know, Satan can so delude you, you think, “Oh, I can’t live without them. Oh, this is the love of my life. This is the love of the ages. Oh, my.” Just let them get married and they find out that they could have lived very well without each other. It was just a big lie that Satan had built up in their minds.

So turning them over to this, so oftentimes, brings the destruction of the flesh, the excitement, the glamour, the allure of the whole thing. And Paul’s admonition to “deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh in order that the spirit might be saved in that day of judgment.” Again, salvation is the ultimate desire and goal here, even if it involves the destruction of the flesh, the important thing is that the spirit be saved in the day of the Lord.

Now your glorying in your broadness is not good ( 1Co 5:6 ).

The fact that you’re puffed up over this and you glory in the fact that, “Well, sure, you know, we can accept these kind of things.” That’s not good, Paul said.

For do you not know that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? ( 1Co 5:6 )

Leaven was the sourdough starter that the women used in making their bread, always keeping a little bit of the dough from the last batch to mix it in with the new batch of dough. And leaven is used in the scripture always in an evil sense. Because the leavening process is actually a putrefying process, the air that gets into it by the rotting process. And a little starter into the new batch of dough will work its way through the whole batch of dough. A little leaven will leaven the whole lump.

And it is such a classic picture of sin, how that just allowing, tolerating, a little area of evil, it can permeate the whole life of the body. It can affect the whole body. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Therefore, purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us ( 1Co 5:7 ):

Now Paul brings in here the picture of the Passover. The Passover was the time of unleavened bread. In preparing for the Passover, the fourteenth of April, the Jews would go through their whole house in a search for leaven, to remove from the house any leaven that may exist. And then they would make the bread for the Passover out of unleavened bread, or the flat bread, the unleavened bread; leaven being a type of sin. And so the Feast of the Passover was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and it was known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A beautiful type is involved, because of Jesus Christ, of which the Passover was a type, being without sin, our Passover, our sacrifice, without sin. And so, leaven being related to sin and the old life in sin. Now, “Purge out the leaven from the church that we might be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” So Christ our Passover, the one in whom the whole Passover scene is fulfilled, the unleavened bread, the broken bread, and all, the whole beautiful symbolism there, Christ our Passover sacrificed for us.

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven ( 1Co 5:8 ),

That would be the feast of love within the church.

not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth ( 1Co 5:8 ).

As we meet together, let us meet together in sincerity, let us meet together in truth, let us worship together in sincerity and truth. Let us love one another in sincerity and truth. Within the body of Christ, we should not have the malice; we should not have the strife, the wickedness, but there should be a purity of heart before the Lord when we gather together to worship Him.

Now Paul refers to an epistle that he wrote to the Corinthians which we do not possess. So we call this I Corinthians, but it really is II Corinthians or maybe even more. We do not know how many letters Paul wrote to them. But he does refer to a letter that he had already written to them.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world ( 1Co 5:9-10 ).

Paul now here is making a definite separation and distinction between our fellowship in the church and our life in the world. Within the church we are not to have fellowship with fornicators, nor with the covetous, or with idolaters. Outside of the church we live in a world that is filled with fornicators, filled with covetous people, filled with idolaters. And the Christian life is never intended to be a monastic existence.

In order to live a pure life, God never intended for you to go and cloister yourself behind some high walls and be shut out totally from the world. God intends that you be a light to the world, and the light is not to be placed under a bushel or behind closed walls, but shining in the world to give light to those that are in the world. Therefore, as I deal with the world, I have to deal with people who are immoral, who are greedy, and who are idolaters.

But when I come to church and meet together with the people of God, I should be able to meet in a totally different environment. There should be a holiness, there should be a purity within the body as we meet together.

Now it is interesting as Paul lists these three basic sins: fornication, greediness, and idolatry. As you look at fornication, it is really a sin against yourself. It is a sin that is marked, really, by selfishness. But it is that of taking advantage of another person, thinking of them only for sexual gratification. Not really caring so much for them as a person, but only that you can satisfy your own biological urges. They become an object, so it is really a sin against the other person, a sin that is marked by selfishness.

Greed, of course, is totally selfish. Covetousness or extortioning. That is really out for myself to get from you what I can by whatever means possible.

But idolatry is sin against God. That is worshipping something other than God. When a person establishes an idol, and let us not think of an idol only in terms of some little figure that’s been carved out of wood or made out of silver or gold. For a person can make an idol of a car, or of a garden, or of a building. It’s amazing how many people make idols of buildings.

There were a lot of people who had much misgivings when we moved from the little chapel a block away. “Oh my, you know, I was saved here. Oh, you know, we can’t leave this place, you know. Let’s build three tabernacles and stay right here. This is where God met me.” Whenever a person establishes an idol, a representation, it indicates, first of all, that they have lost the true consciousness of the presence of God within their lives. And so this is a reminder of what I once had or experienced.

In the Old Testament when Hezekiah became the king, Israel had lapsed into idolatry. Hezekiah was a reformer and one of his first actions was to cut down the groves in which they had worshipped the false gods and had set up their idols. And he broke down the various altars unto the gods that had been built. And then it says, “And he took the serpent that Moses had made in the wilderness and he broke it in pieces and he said ‘nehushtan'” ( 2Ki 18:4 ).

You see, that serpent that Moses set up in the wilderness when the children of Israel were being plagued by these poisonous serpents into the camp, and as they were bitten and dying, the Lord said to Moses, “Make a serpent of brass, put it on the pole in the middle of the camp, and whoever is bitten by the serpent, if they will look upon that serpent of brass in the middle of the camp, he will be saved” ( Num 21:8 ). Again, a very beautiful picture of Jesus Christ as Jesus Himself pointed out to Nicodemus, “For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believes in Him should not perish” ( Joh 3:14-15 ). So the serpent’s the symbol of sin, the serpent of brass the symbol of the judgment of sin, for brass a metal of judgment, the serpent a symbol of sin. So to look at Jesus and see my sin judged, you see, my sin doesn’t then kill me, it doesn’t destroy me, but I live by looking at Jesus crucified for me.

But the people took this serpent. Someone kept it. And gradually, through the process of time, this had become an idol. And the people used to make pilgrimages to look at the serpent of brass that Moses had made in the wilderness. And it had become an idolatrous thing. And so he broke it in pieces and he said, “Nehushtan,” which in the Hebrew means, “a thing of brass.” It’s not a god. It’s not a representation of God. This is only a thing of brass. And when we’re prone to get attached to buildings, we need to realize, a thing of stone, a thing of wood, it’s only a building. And we mustn’t get attached just because that’s the place where God met me.

You see, I should be having a fresh experience with God each day. And the fact that I want to erect an idol means that I have lost that consciousness of God’s presence. I’m reaching back for something that I have lost, trying to regain it by establishing a relic. Idolatry, the sin against God.

But yet, as I’m in the world I mix with these people. I have to. I don’t say to the person checking out the groceries, “Is your life pure before God? Now, I don’t know if I should allow you to touch my groceries unless you’re born again, you know.” I’m in the world and I have to live among the world. I will confess, I don’t like it at times, and there are times when I frankly hate it. I hate it when I have to listen to the filth that pours out of some people’s mouths. It disgusts me when they open the door to their sewer and just let it pour out through the room.

I hate it when I’m sitting in a restaurant and people light up. And why is it they always hold the thing up over their shoulder, you know. I’ll tell you why they do, they don’t want to smell the stinking thing themselves. But that’s so totally inconsiderate. But I’m living in the world, and I cannot escape it, and God doesn’t intend that I try to escape it by moving off.

Now I will confess, I’ve had real yearnings to say, “Let’s all go together and let’s purchase an island in the Caribbean. And let’s just have a totally Christian community, you know, where our kids could just grow up with no jails, no police departments, none of the need for this, because we just live together according to the principals of the Word and just in a loving community.” Oh my, how I would love to see my grandkids being able to walk down the street without having to worry about some nut trying to entice them in a car or to forcefully abuse them. It concerns me the direction our world is going in, and I would oftentimes, in my mind, I would love to escape.

But God didn’t intend that we escape and that we just have our own little heaven on earth. We’re living in a world that is filled with sin. We’re living in a world that’s corrupted by sin, but we look for that city which hath foundation, whose builder and maker is God. And we’re just pilgrims here; we’re just passing through. One of these days we will come to the kingdom and it will be a place of beauty and rejoicing and the scripture says, “And the children shall play in the streets and not be afraid.” But not now, not yet. I cannot escape it. I must be a light in this dark place.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother ( 1Co 5:11 )

This is a different sense. If he’s in the church and he’s called a brother, and yet, he is a fornicator or he’s covetous or he’s an idolater or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner, I’m not to have close fellowship with him. And that is what the term “to eat” signifies. For you see, according to the Oriental tradition of the Middle East, to eat together with a person is to become one with that person. For in their society they usually have a common bowl of soup of sorts in the middle of the table and then a common loaf of bread. And you take and you pull off a portion of the bread and you dip it in the bowl. And the person next to you, they don’t use utensils, they just take their hands and pull it off and you pass the bread around. Everyone pulls off a hunk and then you dip it in the same bowl of soup in the middle of the table and you’re all eating from the same bowl of soup and the same loaf of bread. Well, that makes me one with you, because the bread that is now being assimilated and becoming a part of my body, is being assimilated into your body and becoming a part of your body. So the same loaf of bread is nourishing and assimilating in both of us, so I become a part of you and you become a part of me. And they really looked at it like that. We’re being joined together as one by the eating together. That’s why the Jew would never eat with a Gentile; he didn’t want to become one with a Gentile.

So if a man within the church is a fornicator, an extortioner, or covetous, or an idolater, a drunkard, [or whatever,] then don’t have this close communion with him ( 1Co 5:11 ).

You shouldn’t have this close fellowship with him.

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not you judge those that are within? Those that are on the outside God will judge ( 1Co 5:12-13 ).

But we should have a certain judgment within the church.

Therefore put away from among you that wicked person ( 1Co 5:13 ).

Referring back to this fellow who was having an incestuous relationship with his stepmother.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

1Co 5:1. , 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, , 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, , since nevertheless there is some difference between them, we do not accurately know, what angels are: so in this passage, no fornication, , at all should be reported among you; nevertheless it is, , absolutely reported. The same principle applies to the particle, , absolutely.- , concerning you [Engl. Vers. among]) in your name [case].-, , fornication and such fornication) An important repetition; by which the Corinthians might be more affected.-, not even) It was a crime not named even among the Gentiles, with the exception of a few monsters; is the Protherapeia[37] of the following clause. The apostle shows, that such infamous conduct was held in abhorrence even by the Gentiles.-, 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.-, should have) by a single act, or by habitual intercourse, 1Co 5:2-3.

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

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 5:1

1Co 5:1

It is actually reported-[It was a matter of common notoriety, talked among the people generally and caused great scandal.]

that there is fornication among you,-With the confluence of strangers and of commerce, were associated the luxury and licentiousness which gave the name of Corinth an infamous notoriety, and which connected in the case of the Temple of Aphrodite with religious rites, requiring licentious acts in its devotees, it is not surprising that such sins would be committed by some of those who professed to be followers of Christ. For sins that are common and popular in a community will trouble a church in that community.

and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles,- Here is a type of licentiousness in the church that was not tolerated among the heathen. [It was held in detestation by them as a shameful and abominable monstrosity.]

that one of you hath his fathers wife.-It is probable that the father had been guilty of the folly of marrying a woman better suited in age for his son. But it was a gross outrage upon chastity and virtue, and yet the church was tolerating it and glorying over it. [The marriage of a son to his stepmother was forbidden among the Jews under the penalty of death (Lev 18:8; Lev 20:11; Deu 22:30; Deu 27:20); and it was a violation of the Roman law and held in abhorrence by them. From the complete silence as to the crime of the woman, it is inferred that she was a heathen.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The apostle now passed to derelictions. The first was lack of discipline. A case of immorality had brought no sense of shame to the church, and no action had been taken. The woman was called to immediate and drastic dealing therewith, and was to act in harmony with the apostle’s instruction finally by “the power of the Lord Jesus.” The man must be severed from all the advantages of church fellowship.

The reasons for these strong measures were the ultimate salvation of the excommunicated man and the purification of the church. The whole teaching emphasized that there must be no toleration of evil in the church.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

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 Gods 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 by the spiritual disorder ( ) which, according to St Pauls 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 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. . 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: nulla debebat in vobis audiri scortatio; at auditur (Beng.).

. The 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 Apostles censure falls, not upon the talk about the crime within the community, but upon its occurrence, and the failure to deal with it.

. 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 , from which it is distinguished Mat 15:19 and Mar 7:21: cf. Hos 3:3; Ecclus. 23:23, where we have .

. And of so monstrous a character as does not exist even among the heathen. The intensifies , and 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 Sassias marriage with her son-in-law, Melinus.*

. The placing of betwen and throws emphasis on to these two words (Blass, Gr. 80, 2). Chrysostom suggests that St Paul uses rather than 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 rather than does not prove this) she was not, at the time, the wife of the offenders 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 there is not the offenders 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 implies a permanent union of some kind, but perhaps not a formal marriage: cf. Joh 4:18. Origen speaks of it as a marriage (), and 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 , 3 L P, Syrr. AV. add : * A B C D E F G 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.

2. . The pronoun is emphatic; you, among whom this enormity has taken place and is notorious, you are puffed up. He does not mean that they were puffed up because of this outrage, as if it were a fine assertion of Christian freedom, but in spite of it. It ought to have humbled them to the dust, and yet they still retained their self-satisfied complacency. WH., Tisch., Treg. and RV. marg. make this verse interrogative; Are ye puffed up? Did ye not rather mourn? But the words are more impressive as the statement of an amazing and shocking fact: is not always interrogative (10:29; Luk 12:51, Luk 12:13:3, Luk 12:5, Luk 12:16:30; Joh 9:9, Joh 9:13:10, Joh 9:11). Their morbid selfimportance, which made them so intolerant of petty wrongs (6:7), made them very tolerant of deep disgrace.

. Mourned, as if for one who was dead.

. The indicates, not the purpose of the mourning, but the result of it, contemplated as its normal effect (see on 1:15). A proper Christian instinct would have led them to have expelled the guilty person in irrepressible horror at his conduct.

. Qui hoc facinus patravit (Beza). The language is purposely vague, but the context suggests a bad meaning: (not ) indicates a moral point of view. The attitude of the Corinthian Christians towards such conduct is probably to be accounted for by traditional Corinthian laxity.* It is said that the Rabbis evaded the Mosaic prohibitions of such unions (Lev 20:11; Deu 22:30) in the case of proselytes. A proselyte made an entirely new start in life and cut off all his former relationships; therefore incest, in his case, was impossible, for he had no relations, near or distant. It is not likely that this evasion of the Mosaic Law, if already in existence, was known to the Corinthians and had influenced them.

L has for ( A B C D E F G P); and B D E F G L P have for ( A C 17, and other cursives). It is not easy to decide in this latter case, and editors are divided. Compare 2Co 12:21; Rom 1:32, Rom 2:1-3.

3. . For I, with much emphasis on the pronoun, which is in contrast to the preceding : my feelings about it are very different from yours. The introduces the justification of , showing what expulsion involves. St Paul does not mean that, as the Corinthians have not excommunicated the offender, he must inflict a graver penalty: this would be punishing the offender for what was the fault of his fellows. He is explaining what he has just said about their failing to remove the man. No follows the : the contrast which marks is with what goes before (v. 2), not with anything that is to follow. The correlation of is much less common in N.T. than in class. Grk. In some books does not occur, and in several cases it has no as here: 1Th 2:18; Rom 7:12, Rom 10:1, etc. See Blass, Gr. 77. 12.

. Although absent in the body. Again a contrast: you, who are on the spot, do nothing; I, who am far away, and might excuse myself on that account, take very serious action. Origen compares Elisha (2Ki 5:26).

. His own spirit, as in v. 4: cf. v. 5 and 2:11. In Col 2:5 we have a similar utterance, but there takes the place of . It is the highest constituent element in mans nature, and his point of contact with the Spirit of God.

… Either, have already, as if I were present, judged the man; or, have already, as if I were present, decided with regard to the man; or, have already come to a decision, as if I were present: with regard to the man, etc. In the last case, which is perhaps the best, is governed by and is repeated in .*

Before , D 3 E F G L, AV, insert : A B C D* P 17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV. omit.

4. … Here we have choice of four constructions. Either, take with and with , or both with , or both with , or . with , and . with . If the order of the words is regarded as decisive, the first of these will seem to be most natural, and it yields good sense. Lightfoot adopts it. The Greek commentators mostly prefer the second construction, but neither it nor the third is as probable as the first and the fourth. It is not likely that either or is meant to have both qualifications, while the other has none. The fourth constructicn is the best of the four. The solemn opening, , placed first with emphasis, belongs to the main verb, the verb which introduces the sentence that is pronounced upon the offender, while . . . supplies a coefficient that is essential to the competency of the tribunal. The opening words prepare us for a sentence of grave import, but we are kept in suspense as to what the sentence will be, until the conditions which are to give it validity are described. Graviter suspensa mane et vibrat oratio (Beng.). We translate, therefore; With regard to the man who has thus perpetrated the deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-you being assembled and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ-to deliver such an one to Satan. The is not rendered superfluous by the preceding : it intimates that the Apostle is prepared to deal in a similar way with any similar offender.

After . , B D E F G L P have , and it is probably genuine, but A and other witnesses omit, and it might easily be inserted from the next clause. P and some other witnesses omit the second . After first , D 3 E F G L P, Vulg. Syrr. add : A B D*, Am. omit. After second , D 3 F L add : A B D* P, Vulg. omit, AV. inserts Christ in both places; RV. omits in both.

5. . . . This means solemn expulsion from the Church and relegation of the culprit to the region outside the commonwealth and covenant (Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12), where Satan holds away. We have the same expression 1Ti 1:20. It describes a severer aspect of the punishment which is termed (v. 2) and (v. 13). Satan is the (Joh 12:31, Joh 16:11), and the offender is sent back to his domain; ut qui auctor fuerat ad vitium nequitiae, ipse flagellum fieret disciplinae (Herv.). St Paul calls Satan the god of this age (2Co 4:4), an expression which occurs nowhere else; and a Christian, who through his own wickedness forfeits the security of being a member of Christ in His Church, becomes, like the heathen, exposed to the malignity of Satan (1Jn 5:19) to an extent that Christians cannot be.

. There is no need to choose between the two interpretations which have been put upon this expression, for they are not mutually exclusive and both are true. The sinner was handed over to Satan for the mortification of the flesh, i.e. to destroy his sinful lusts; is Origens interpretation. This meaning is right, for the punishment was inflicted with a remedial purpose, both in this case and in that of 1Ti 1:20: and the interpretation is in harmony with the frequent Pauline sense of (Rom 8:13 and Col 3:5), as distinct from . But so strong a word as implies more than this. Unto destruction of the flesh includes physical suffering, such as follows spiritual judgment on sin (11:30; Act 5:1 f., Act 13:11).* The Apostle calls his own thorn for the flesh an (2Co 12:7; cf. Luk 13:16). We have the same idea in job, where Jehovah says to Satan, (2:6). And in the book of Jubilees (10:2) demons first lead astray, and then blind and kill, the grandchildren of Noah. Afterwards Noah is taught by angels how to rescue his offspring from the demons. See Thackeray, St Paul and Contemfiorary Jewish Thought, p. 171. Here the punishment is for the good, not only of the community, but also of the offender, upon whom the suffering inflicted by Satan would have a healing effect.

. The purpose of the suffering is not mere destruction; it is remedial, . Cf. (3:15). Here , as the seat of personality, is suggested by the context instead of .* As in 2Co 7:1, is used in contrast to , and as the chief and distinctive factor in the constitution of man, but as not per se distinctive of a state of grace. Strong measures may be needed in order to secure its salvation. See Abbott, The Son of Man, pp. 482, 791.

. . 1:8; 2Co 1:14; 1Th 5:2, etc.

It is sometimes assumed that, while the Corinthian Church was competent, by itself, to expel an offender (v. 2), it was by virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an Apostle that the delivery to Satan was inflicted. There is nothing in the passage to prove this; and the in v. 3 rather points the other way. Why should St Paul inflict a more severe punishment than that which the Corinthian Church ought to have inflicted?

It is still more often assumed that the sequel of this case is referred to in 2Co 2:5-11, 2Co 7:12. It is inferred from these passages that the Corinthian Church held a meeting such as the Apostle prescribes in this chapter, and by a majority (2Co 2:6) passed the sentence of expulsion, whereupon the offender was led to repentance; and that the Corinthians then awaited the Apostles permission to remit the sentence, which permission he gives (2Co 2:10). This view, however, is founded on two assumptions, one of which is open to serious question, and the other to question which is so serious as to be almost fatal. The view assumes that 2 Cor. 1-9. was written soon after 1 Cor., which is very doubtful. It also assumes that 2Co 2:5-11 and 7:12 refer to this case of incest, which is very difficult to believe. 2Co 7:12 certainly refers to the same case as 2Co 2:5-11, and the language in 7:12 is so utterly unsuitable to the case of incest that it is scarcely credible that it can refer to it. See Hastings, DB. 1. p. 493, iii. p. 711, and iv. p. 768; G.H. Rendall, The Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 63, 71; Goudge, p. 41; Plummer on 2Co 7:12.

F has for . After , L add , D adds , A F M add : B has simply , which may be the original reading, but is not improbable; so AV., RV., WH. marg.

6. . Not seemly is your boast: it is ill-timed, and it is discreditable to all who share in it.* Where a revolting crime is bringing disgrace and peril to the community, there can be no place for boasting. St Paul does not mean that the subject of their glorying, the thing they glory in (e.g. their enlightenment, or their liberty) is not good; but that in such distressing circumstances overt glorying is very unsuitable. As Evans elaborately points out, is not materies gloriandi, but gloriatio (Beza, Beng.), or (more accurately) gloriatio facta, boasting uttered. So also in 2Co 5:12.

. The comes first with emphasis, and hence implies an argument a fortiori: if even a little leaven is so powerful, if even one unsatisfactory feature may have a septic influence in a community, how much more must a scandal of this magnitude infect the whole life of the Church. The simile of leaven is frequent in the N.T. See Gal 5:9. Here the stress of the argument lies less in the evil example of the offender than in the fact that toleration of this conduct implies concurrence (Rom 1:32) and debases the standard of moral judgment and instinct. To be indifferent to grave misbehaviour is to become partly responsible for it. A subtle atmosphere, in which evil readily springs up and is diffused, is the result. The leaven that was infecting the Corinthian Church was a vitiated public opinion. Cf. 2Th 3:6; also the charge of Germanicus to his soldiers as to their treatment of insubordinate comrades: discedite a contactu, ac dividite turbidos (Tae. Ann. i.43).

Both here and in Gal 5:9 we find the reading for in D with corrumpit in Vulg and other Latin texts.

7. . . A sharp, summary appeal: Rid yourselves of these infected and infectious remains of your unconverted past, even as a Jewish household, in preparation for the Passover, purges the house of all leaven (Exo 12:15 f., Exo 13:7). This was understood as a symbol of moral purification, and the search for leaven as symbolizing infectious evil was scrupulously minute, e.g. with candles to look into corners and mouse-holes for crumbs of leavened bread. Zep 1:12 was supposed to imply this. The penalty for eating leavened bread during the feast was scourging. On compounds with see on 3:18, and cf. 2Ti 2:21.

. It was their acquiescing in the scandal which revealed the presence of a remnant of heathen corruption. The summons to thoroughly purge away all sinful taints cuts deep into the corporate and individual conscience. Each knows the plague-spot in himself. The verb occurs again 2Ti 2:21, and nowhere else in N.T.; also Deu 26:13. With here cf. , Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9. Ignatius (Magn. 10) says, . By the evil leaven which has become stale and sour he means Judaism. Note the .

. That you may be a new lump of dough, i.e. may make a new start in sanctification free from old and evil influence.* Cf. (Mat 9:17), and see Trench, Syn. lx. There is only one , only one body of Christians, just as there is only one loaf (10:17). See on Luk 12:1 for the evil associations connected with leaven: (Plutarch). See Hastings, DB. III. p. 90.

. This is the proper, the ideal condition of all Christians. Ye are unleavened, having been baptized and made a in Christ (2Co 5:17; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10), and are becoming in fact what you are in principle and by profession (6:11). St Paul habitually idealizes, speaking to Christians as if they were Christians in the fullest sense, thus exemplifying Kants maxim that you should treat a man as if he were what you would wish him to be.

It is utterly wrong to take literally; ye are without leaven, because (it is assumed) they were at that moment keeping the Passover. (1) In the literal sense, is used of things, not of persons. (2) The Corinthian Church consisted almost entirely of Gentile Christians. (3) The remark would have no point in this context. But the imagery in this passage suggests, though it does not prove, that St Paul was writing at or near the Passover season (cf. 16:8). See Deissmann, Light, p. 333.

. Directly, this is the reason for the preceding statement; You are , purified from the leaven of your old self, by virtue of the death of your Saviour. Indirectly and more broadly, this is a reason for the practical summons at the beginning of the verse: It is high time for you to purge out the old leaven; for the Lamb is already slain and your house is not yet fully cleansed: you are late! See Deu 16:6; Mar 14:12; Luk 22:7.* The serves to link the Christian antitype to the Jewish type.

. Even Christ; last for emphasis, like (Rom 2:1) and (Heb 7:4). The force of the Apostles appeal is in any case obvious, but it gains somewhat in point if we suppose him to have in mind the tradition which is embodied in the Fourth Gospel, that Christ was crucified on the 14th Nisan, the day appointed for the slaying of the paschal lamb. We may say that the Pauline tradition, like the Johannine, makes the Death of Christ, rather than the Last Supper, the antitype of the Passover, but we can hardly claim St Paul as a definite witness for the 14th Nisan. On this difficult subject see Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, p. 146; Hastings, DB. 1. p. 411, DCG. II:5; and the literature there quoted.

Nor, again, can this passage be claimed as evidence for the Christian observance of Easter, although such observance would probably be coeval with that of the Lords Day. As in Mar 14:12; Luk 22:7, Luk 22:11; Joh 18:28, is here used of the paschal lamb, not, as commonly, of the paschal supper or of the paschal octave.

without connecting article ( A B D E F G, Vulg. Copt. RV.) rather than ( 3 C L P, Aeth. AV.). On still stronger evidence, must be omitted after . Cursives have for . Did Ignatius (see above) have in his text?

8. . With cohortative subjunctive as with imperative, see on 3:21.

. Our passover-feast is not for a week, but for a life-time (Godet), (Chrys.). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is frequent in LXX. (Orig.).

. See on 4:21 for this use of .

. Trench, Syn. ii., makes the vicious principle, its outward exercise. It is doubtful whether this is correct. In LXX both words are used indifferently to translate the same Hebrew words, which shows that to Hellenists they conveyed ideas not widely distinct. In the Vulgate both malitia and nequitia are used to translate both words, malitia being used most often for , and nequitia for , for which iniquitas also is used. Malice may translate in most places in the N.T., but not in Mat 6:34, where Vulg. has malitia (!), not in Act 8:22, where it has nequitia. It is noteworthy that pravitas is not used for either word. Luk 11:39 shows that may mean thoughts or purposes of wickedness; cf. Mar 7:22. The genitives are genitives of apposition.

. Perhaps unleavened bread (AV., RV.) is right, with reference to the unleavened cakes eaten at the Passover; (Exo 12:15). But is very indefinite; unleavened elements. Origen refers this to 1:2.

. The word is a crux as regards etymology, but it seems to mean transparency, limpid purity, and hence ingenuousness.

. In its wider sense, rectitude, integrity; cf. 13:6; Eph 5:9; Joh 3:21.*

( B C F G L de Vulg.) rather than (A D E P). For F has .

9. . Pursuing the main purpose of the passage, viz. to rebuke their indifference respecting moral scandal, the Apostle corrects a possible misapprehension of his former directions; or at any rate he shows how what he said before would apply in cases more likely to occur than the one, which has just been discussed. I wrote to you in my letter, in the letter which was well known to the Corinthians, a letter earlier than our 1 Corinthians and now lost. It is true that might be an epistolary aorist (Gal 6:11; 1Jn 2:14) referring to the letter then being written. But (cf. 2Co 7:8) must refer to another letter. Rom 16:22; Col 4:16; 1Th 5:27 are all retrospective, being parts of a postscript. In this letter he has not given any direction about not keeping company with fornicators; for a summons to expel a member who has contracted an incestuous union cannot be regarded as a charge not to associate with fornicators. It is evident that here, as in 2Co 10:9 f., he is making reference to an earlier letter which has not been preserved. So also Atto; non in hac epistola sed altera: and Herveius; in alia jam epistola. Some think that 2Co 6:14-1 may be part of the letter in question. See notes there and Introduction to 2 Corinthians in the Cambridge Greek Testament. Stanley gives two spurious letters, one from, the other to, St Paul, which are not of much interest, but which have imposed upon the Armenian Church (Appendix, p. 591 f.).*

. Lit. not to mix yourselves up together with: ne commisceamini (Vulg.). This expressive combination of two prepositions with the verb occurs again in a similar connexion 2Th 3:14; also in the A text of Hos 7:8. Cf. 2Th 3:6.

10. . Not altogether, not absolutely, not in all circumstances. It limits the prohibition of intercourse with fornicators, which does not apply in the case of fornicators who are outside the Christian community. The Apostle is not repeating the prohibition in another form, which would have required , as before. The = not, I mean, or I do not mean. The meaning is quite clear.

. Of the non-Christian world.

. Or here is equivalent to our any more than.

. These form a single class, coupled by the single article and the , and separated from each of the other classes by . This class is that of the absolutely selfish, who covet and sometimes seize more than their just share of things. They exhibit that amor sui which is the note of this world, and which usurps the place of amor Dei, until becomes a form of idolatry (Eph 5:5).

. In the literal sense; 10:14; 1Jn 5:21. This is the first appearance of the word (Rev 21:8, Rev 22:15), which may have been coined by St Paul. In Eph 5:5 it is used in a figurative sense of a worshipper of Mammon. The triplet of vices here consists of those which characterize non-Christian civilization; lax morality, greed, and superstition. The last, in some form or other, is the inevitable substitute for spiritual religion.

. Since in that case you would have to; cf. 7:14. implies a protasis, which is suppressed by an easy ellipse; since, were it not so, then, etc. introduces a subjective sequence, while introduces an objective one. is in an apodosis, where the idiomatic imperfect marks the consequence of a state of things that is supposed not to exist; and the which is usual in such an apodosis is commonly omitted with such verbs as , , , etc.

. This for most people is impossible; but at Corinth in St Pauls day it was well for Christians to see as little of the heathen world as was possible. In 10:27 he does not forbid the presence of Christians at private entertainments given by heathen, but he implies that they ought not to wish to go to them.

(* A B C D* E F G 17, Vulg.) rather than 2 D 3 L P Arm. Aeth.). The yet in AV. seems to represent . (* A B C D* F G P 17, Aeth) rather than ( 3 D 3 E L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.), an alteration to conform to on each side. AV. has or, RV. and. ( A B* C D E F G L 17, Latt,) rather than (B 3 P, Chrys. Thdrt.), another mistaken correction, the force of the imperfect not being seen.

11. . 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 is in v. 9 historical, of an earlier letter, and here epistolary, of the present letter. The is logical, not temporal, now you see, now you understand that the earlier letter meant something different. Had the Apostle meant the to be temporal and the verb to refer to the present letter, he would have written , as in 4:14. He has stated what the earlier letter did not mean ( ), and he now very naturally states what it did mean.*

. The form of protasis covers all cases that may come to light: see on 4:15. Almost all editors prefer to to before .

. 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 or, etc. Some early interpreters take with what follows; if any brother be called a whoremonger, or be a notorious whoremonger. The latter would require , and we should have rather than . Evidently and 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.

. There is no good ground for supposing that, either here, or in v. 10, or anywhere else, 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.

. 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.

. Origen notes with what very evil people the is classed: . 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 and into such company. Mat 5:21, Mat 5:22; 1Pe 3:9.

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

. An emphatic intimation of what he means by . Cf. Luk 15:2; Gal 2:12. The Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which case the 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 Lords Table. Great caution is required in applying the Apostles 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; , (2Th 3:15). Clement of Rome (Cor. 14) says of the ringleaders of the schism, , perhaps in reference to Mat 5:45, Mat 5:48.

(3 A B D 3 E F G L P) rather than (* C D* D 2 ): the more emphatic form might seem to be more suitable. Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Goth. support against before . For , A has and F has .

12. ; For what business of mine is it to judge those that are outside? Quid enim mhi (Vulg.); Ad quid mihi (Tert.); Quid mea interest (Beza). Gives the reason why they ought never to have supposed that he ordered them to shun the company of heathen who were fornicators: the meaning given in v. 11 is the only possible meaning. The phrase (1Th 4:12; Col 4:5) is of Jewish origin. Jews applied it to Gentiles; our Lord applies it to Jews who are not His disciples (Mar 4:11); St Paul applies it to non-Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. In 1Ti 3:7, where he speaks of non-Christians judging Christians, he uses . The expression states a fact, without any insinuation of censure. How could they suppose that he claimed jurisdiction over heathen and placed a stigma upon them for heathen behaviour? Epictetus (Enchir. 47) tells those who are continent not to be severe upon those who are not, or to claim any superiority.

; and are in emphatic juxtaposition: Is it not those that are within that you judge? They are your sphere of jurisdiction. The present tense is axiomatic, stating what is normal. The proposal to put a colon at and make an imperative (No; judge ye those who are within) is unintelligent. is not an answer to ; and the sentence is much less telling as a command than as a question. is one of the words which are far more common in Paul and Luke than elsewhere in N.T.

13. . The verb is certainly to be accented as a present: it states the normal attribute of God. And the sentence is probably categorical; But them that are without God judgeth. This is more forcible than to bring it under the interrogative ; Is it not the case that you judge those who are within, while God judges those who are without? But WH. and Bachmann adopt the latter.

. A quotation from Deu 17:7, bringing to a sharp practical conclusion the discussion about the treatment of , and at the same time giving a final rebuke to them for their indifference about the case of incest. The offender must be at once expelled. Origen adds that we must not be content with expelling the evil man from our society; we must take care to expel the evil one ( ) from our hearts. Note the double : the riddance must be complete. See on 3:18.

Vulg. Arm. Copt. Aeth. take as a future. ( A B C D* F G P, Vulg.) rather than (D 3 E L), or (17). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is very frequent in LXX.

* There is also the case of Callias, who married his wifes mother. Andocides (b.c. 400), in his speech on the mysteries, asks whether among the Greeks such a thing had ever been done before.

(Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.

P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 -17 : 12:23 -13:5 -: 14:23 . A good type of text in St Pauls Epistles.

A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.

B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 -9:6 : 13:8 -14:40 .

D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 -22 is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1Co 3:8-16, 1Co 6:7-14 (F).

17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. 211, 212.

* What Augustine says of Carthage was still more true of Corinth; circumstrepebal me undique sartago flagiiosorum amorum (Conf. iii.1).

* Evans thinks that does not mean as if I were present in the body, but as being really present in the spirit. His spirit had at times exceptional power of insight into the state of a church at a distance: (Orig,).

* Renan, Godet, and Goudge regard the expression as meaning sentence of death by a wasting sickness. Espulsion is not mentioned here; hence the sharp command in v. 13.

* (Orig.). There was no need to add the and the . The penalty is for the good of the community as well as of the offender. A shepherd, says Origen, must drive out a tainted sheep that would infect the flock.

The resemblance of this passage to various forms of magic spells and curses is sometimes pointed out. The fundamental difference is this, that all such spells and curses aim at serious evil to the persons against whom they are directed. The Apostle aims at the rescue of the offender from perdition. Moreover, he desires to rescue the Corinthian Church from grave peril.

M M (Ninth century). Harl. 5913 * at the British Museum. Contains 15:52 to the end of 16. The MS. also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews.

* Some Latin texts omit the nagative, making the statement sarcastic (Lucif. Ambrst. and MSS. known to Augustine). The may easily have been lost owing to the preceding or .

If he had meant materies gloriandi, he would probably have said that they had none, . Like (11:17, 22), is a reproachful litotes.

* The Vulgate has the curious rendering, ut sitis nova conspersio. This rare substantive is found, with the same unexpected meaning, twice in Tertullian (Marcion. iv. 24, Valent. 31), in the sense of a lump of dough, and once in Irenaeus (v. 14:2), probably as a translation of .

* In Mar 14:12 the AV. has kill the Passover, with sacrifice in the margin; in Luk 22:7, kill, without any alternative; here sacrifice, with slay in the margin: the R.V. has sacrifice in all three places.

On the general relation between the two traditions see J. Kaftan, Jesus u.Paulus, pp. 59-69.

* It is possible that these two words are meant to prepare for what follows. Perhaps the Apostle saw that there had been some shuffling and evasion about the injunction in the former letter. They said that they did not understand it, and made that an excuse for ignoring it. How St Paul heard of the misinterpretation of his earlier letter we are not told. Zahn suggests the Corinthians letter, of which he finds traces even before 7:1 (Introd. to N.T. p. 261).

*

There is little doubt that a number of the Apostles letters have perished, especially those which he wrote in the early part of his career, when his authority was less clearly established, and the value of his words less understood; 2Th 2:2, 2Th 3:17. See Renan, S. Paul, p. 234.

Ramsay points out the resemblance between this passage (9-13) and 2 Thessalonians, which guards against misconception of his teaching that had arisen owing to the strong emphasis which he had laid on the coming of the Kingdom (Pauline Studies, p. 36).

* Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2691, gives other examples.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Removing Germs of Evil

1Co 5:1-13

The sin referred to in this chapter has been condoned by the Corinthian church, and this proved that the prevalent standard of morals was low. A man had married his fathers second wife-his father having probably died. Such an alliance could not be tolerated. A condemnation of the sin must be pronounced by the whole body of believers, acting in concert with the Holy Spirit resident among them. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, Act 15:28.

Paul compares the Corinthian church to the Children of Israel, who, after sprinkling the blood, kept the feast of joy within closed doors-a careful search having been made for any atom of leaven that had hitherto escaped scrutiny. So we should put away from our lives, homes, and churches everything that would offend the gracious Paraclete. Since Christ has been slain for us, we must daily feed on Him with festal joy. Our loins must be girded as becomes those about to depart at a moments notice. We must be ever on the alert to detect the summons for an exodus out of this dark Egyptian world into the world that is to come.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Lecture 12

Discipline In The Church Of God

1Co 4:17-21; 1Co 5:1-13

For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? 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. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 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. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 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. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (4:17-5:13)

We have already noticed that this first epistle to the Corinthians is the charter of the church and that it brings before us certain divinely-given rules and regulations for the ordering of the local churches of God here on earth. This portion deals with the question of the discipline of an open offender against holiness and righteousness. The church is the house of God. When I use that word, I do not mean a building. God had one house made of stone and mortar, the temple at Jerusalem. He has never owned another. His present house is made of living stones, men and women built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. This is the house of God, the assembly of God, which is the church of the living God in this present age of grace; and holiness becomes Gods house. He dwells in His church, that is, in the assembly of His saints, and therefore it must be a holy assembly. That is why again and again in the New Testament we are exhorted to absolute separation from the world and its ways.

Sometimes when those who watch for your souls seek to be very careful regarding worldliness and carnality and unholy things cropping out in the church of God, they are looked upon as censorious and harsh and possibly unkind, because they try to deal with matters of this character, and people fall back on a Scripture like this, Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Mat 7:1-2). In these verses our Lord is speaking of the motives of the heart. You have no right to judge my motives; I have no right to judge your motives. If I see one put a ten-dollar bill in the offering basket and I say to myself, Oh, yes, he is just trying to be ostentatious, he did not give that out of real love for Christ, I am wrong, for I am judging ones motive, and I have no right to do that. This may apply to a thousand things. But the church of God is called upon to judge concerning the unrighteous behavior of any of its members. Verse 12 of chapter 5 says, For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? The world outside goes on its way and the church of God has no jurisdiction there.

The church of God is responsible as to the character of its fellowship, and it is responsible as to those who sit down together at the table of the Lord and are linked up in Christian service. Where there is failure, the individual who fails is responsible before God. It is a serious thing to profess to live the life that should characterize members of the church of God. Ours is a high and holy calling, and if we lower the standard, we are not only dishonoring Christ individually, but we are giving the wrong testimony to the world.

The story is told of a man who wanted to hire a coachman. He lived in a mountainous region and the road to his home ran along a precipice. A number of men applied for the position. He said to one of them, Tell me, are you an adept at handling fractious horses?

Yes, I am, he said.

Can you drive a six-horse team?

Yes.

How near can you drive to the edge of the cliff without going over?

I have a steady hand and my eye is pretty true; I can get within a foot of it and not go over.

You step outside, said the man, and he called another and asked him the same questions.

He said, I am an expert in handling horses; I can drive right along the edge and not go over.

Step outside, and he called another and asked the questions.

If you want a man to drive on the edge of the precipice, said this man, you do not want me. When I drive, I keep as far away from the edge as I can.

You are the man I want. I will take you.

Christian, be careful of the edge of the precipice. Do not get near it, for the first thing you know you will go over, and this will mean not only the ruin of your own testimony, but the sad thing is, you are liable to drag others over with you. Keep away from the edge, and do not resent it if those who watch for your souls as those who must give account try to impress upon you the solemnity of these things.

The apostle Paul had heard serious things concerning certain internal conditions in the church at Corinth, but he had been hindered from getting to them, and certain persons in the church who were carnally minded themselves and who knew that the apostles coming would probably mean rebuking them for their worldly behavior were saying, Paul is really afraid to come to Corinth, he knows he hasnt the influence he once had. But he says, No, I am not afraid to come. Some of you are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. In other words, when he should come (and he was speaking with apostolic authority), there were some things he was going to look into very carefully. He would find out whether the power of God was working in their lives or whether it was just bravado and conceit that led them to justify themselves. There is a tremendous lot of pretence among professing Christians: pretending to a piety that they do not possess, pretending to a devotedness that is not genuine. He would know not only the talk of their lips but would inquire into the behavior that characterized them. For the kingdom of God is not in word, is not merely lip profession, but in power, it is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the life.

The apostle says, I want to come to you, but do you want me to come with a rod-a rod of discipline? Did they want him to come as the representative of the Lord to chastise them for their bad behavior, or to come in the spirit of meekness so that they and he might sit down together over the Word of God and enjoy the precious things of Christ? If they desired him to come in this last way, there were some things to be settled first, and he told them what they were. In the first place, it is reported commonly-this was not merely a matter of some individuals gossip, it was widely known-that you are tolerating one of the vilest forms of immorality that has ever been heard of even among the heathen Gentiles; it is known that one of your members actually has taken his fathers wife (not of course his mother, but his stepmother) as his own wife. This is an abomination in the sight of God, but you have not recognized the wickedness of it. You have rather prided yourselves on the breadth and liberality that would enable you to go on with a thing like that. You are puffed up when you ought to be brokenhearted. Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. Even if they felt that they did not know how to handle a thing like this, they could have been down before God with breaking hearts crying to Him to undertake for them, and He would have intervened and taken the wicked man from among them. But since he had received the evil report, as the representative of the Lord Jesus Christ he was going to tell them how to handle the situation, and in so doing he gave instruction concerning the handling of similar questions all down through the centuries.

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already. In other words, because we are all one in the Lord I have looked into this matter already, I have discerned, I have investigated and have the facts concerning him that has done this deed. This is the verdict, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power [or authority] of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan. What does that mean? John says, We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (1Jn 5:19), or, in the wicked one. This man was in the circle of those who are of God. Somebody might say, The way to help him is to keep him in the circle, let him sit down with you at the Communion table; do not be hard on him, try to win him back, throw your arms of love about him and sympathize with him. The unrepentant man will be more hardened in his iniquity if you do that. Put him outside in the Devils domain, let him know that he has forfeited all title to a place with the people of God-that he has been put back into the world where Satan rules. That is what he means when he says, Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. What has caused all this trouble? The activity of the flesh. Very well, put him out in that sphere where he will find out that it is an evil and a bitter thing to forsake the Lord his God. When he finds himself abhorred by men and women who love Christ, when he finds his sin is a stench in the nostrils of Christian people, he may break before God. If, in spite of his sin, he has really been born again, he will break. If he has been a false professor, he will plunge deeper and deeper into evil things.

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. We do not like to carry out extreme commands like these, but this is the Word of God, and the greatest kindness that the people of God can do to a man who is deliberately going on in willful sin is to refuse Christian fellowship to him. As long as you treat him as a brother he will only be puffed up in his ungodly ways and it will be harder to reach him. But if you obey the Word, God will work toward his recovery and restoration.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Housewives know that. What is the nature of leaven? You have a great pan of dough and insert a little leaven, and if you leave it all night, the whole thing runs over on the table by morning. Very well, you allow one wicked man to go unrebuked and undealt with after the wickedness has been fully manifested, and the thing will go on like an infection working, working, working to the ruin of others and to the harm of the entire testimony.

The church of God is largely afraid to exercise discipline today, but where this is carried out in obedience to the Word of God the church is kept in a condition where God can work. The apostle was not acting upon mere hearsay, there was definite evidence as to the guilt of this man. The church of God is not to jump to conclusions. We are not to believe every scandal that people try to circulate. We have a rule, If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (Mat 18:15-17). If he will not hear the church, he has to be put under discipline. If one knows of definite wickedness, he should go first to the guilty person and try to set it right. If he does not succeed, he is then to take another witness, but if he will not hear them, they are to take it to the church of God and be prepared to back up everything.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. Before God the whole body is looked upon as unleavened, for Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. We are men and women who began with the blood of the cross. Like Israel in Egypt, when sheltered by the Passover, they were to put all leaven away. Leaven is the type of wickedness.

Leaven is mentioned in Gal 5:9: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. There he is speaking of evil and unsound teaching which permeates and leavens the assembly of God. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, and if we have been redeemed by the precious blood it is incumbent upon us to recognize our responsibility to keep the feast, the feast of communion and fellowship with Him, not with old leaven, that is, the corruption of the old nature, nor with malice. Is there a child of God who is still tolerating un-judged malice in the heart? Neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Our God looks for reality. It is not enough to say, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Mat 7:22). The great thing is for all who have been redeemed by His precious blood to manifest subjection to the Lord in the life.

In the concluding verses the apostle stresses the treatment that should be meted out to evildoers who have gotten into the church. You cannot discipline the world. He says, I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters. If you should try to regulate all immorality in the world, you would have a tremendous job upon your hands, but here is the point: if a man who calls himself a brother is an immoral man or a covetous man-what is that? Does he couple covetousness with fornication? The love of money is a root of all evil (1Ti 6:10), and covetousness, reaching out and grasping for wealth, is just as vile a thing in Gods sight as indulgence in unholy lust in other lines.

If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer. What is a railer? It is a person who has a tongue loose at both ends and on a pivot in the middle, a vicious talker, an evil speaker, one who can destroy the reputation of another just as the murderer drives a dagger into the heart and destroys a life. A railer is a wicked person in the sight of God. Oh, somebody says, I dont mean any harm, but I am so careless with my tongue. What would you think of one who goes around with a machine gun and keeps firing away on this side and that, and someone says, What are you doing? Oh, he replies, I dont mean any harm, but I am so careless with this machine gun. A character assassin is as wicked in the sight of God as one who would take anothers life.

Or a drunkard. No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. You young people in these vicious days in which we live, if you never want to be a drunkard, do not fall in with the current idea of thinking it is fashionable for everybody to drink a little bit. No man ever became a drunkard who was not first a moderate drinker. Somebody may say, I do not believe in that; I can take a little and it does me no harm. But it may do your brother harm, and Paul said, If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth (1Co 8:13). Here is Gods standard. 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.

An extortioner is one who squeezes the poor. Maybe he tries to cover up his sin in this way: he squeezes the poor and makes an extra thousand dollars, and then on Sunday comes down to the church and says, I want to give you a hundred dollars for missions. God says, Keep your dirty money, you got it in the wrong way. God wants holy money to use in holy service. An extortioner is a wicked person and God says, With such an one no not to eat. You are not to sit down to the table with such an one. That would cut down our dinner parties considerably, and I take it that he also includes the Lords table. People should be warned to stay away from the Lords table if living as depicted here.

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? Outside in the world God judges, He will deal with them in due time, but He calls upon the church of God to maintain careful discipline over its members for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. His good name is at stake. People say, What! Is that one of your Christians? Does that person belong to Christ and do thus and so? That is one reason why the church of God is responsible to maintain holiness as it goes on through the world.

And now the concluding word: Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Of course there is a great deal of other instruction in Scripture for discipline, as in the case of a brother overtaken in a fault, and the Word says, If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted (Gal 6:1). Every effort should first be made to restore the wanderer, but if he will not be restored, if he persists in his sin, if he goes on defying the discipline of the church of God, then the time comes when the Word has to be acted on: Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Perhaps some of you feel like saying what one of the Hopi Indians said to me one time after I had tried to put before them the responsibility of a Christian. They had a rather peculiar name for me; it was, The Man with the Iron Voice; and he said, Man with the Iron Voice, you have made the way very hard today. I thought I was saved by grace alone, but now it looks as though I have to walk to heaven on the edge of a razor. We are saved by grace alone, but we are called to walk in holiness, and while we have no ability to do it ourselves, the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in every believer and He is the power of the new life. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit, and we will be enabled thus to honor the Lord Jesus Christ by holy, unworldly, devoted, godly lives.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

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.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

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 adversarys 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 Gods people. But not only was there individual evil, but the sin affected the whole Corinthian assembly. As Achans 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 Christs. 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.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

reported: 1Co 1:11, Gen 37:2, 1Sa 2:24

fornication: 1Co 5:11, 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:13, 1Co 6:18, Act 15:20, Act 15:29, 2Co 12:21, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, 1Th 4:7, Rev 2:21, Rev 21:8

and: Jer 2:33, Eze 16:47, Eze 16:51, Eze 16:52

that one: Gen 35:22, Gen 49:4, Lev 18:8, Lev 20:11, Deu 22:30, Deu 27:20, 2Sa 16:22, 2Sa 20:3, 1Ch 5:1, Eze 22:10, Amo 2:7, 2Co 7:12

Reciprocal: Jos 7:1 – the anger Jos 7:13 – take away Jdg 20:7 – ye are all 2Sa 16:21 – unto thy Jer 2:10 – and see Jer 5:28 – overpass Jer 18:13 – who Eze 5:6 – she hath Mat 13:47 – and gathered Mat 19:9 – except 1Co 5:8 – not 1Co 5:13 – Therefore 1Co 11:18 – I hear 2Co 2:3 – I wrote 2Co 2:5 – any 2Co 11:29 – and I burn Heb 12:16 – any fornicator 3Jo 1:10 – I will

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

AS WE READ the opening verses of chapter 5, we see that the Corinthians quite deserved the rod of which Paul spoke, as he closed chapter 4. There was a very grave case of immorality in their midst. Corinth was a licentious city, and the standard of morality amongst the Gentiles was deplorably low, yet even they avoided the particular sin which had been perpetrated by this professing Christian. The thing had not been done in secret. It was known on all hands.

But though it was a matter of common report the assembly at Corinth had taken no action. That was bad enough, but they aggravated their indifference by their conceit. Possibly they might have pleaded that as yet they had no instructions what to do in such a case. But this, if true, was no real excuse, for a very small measure of spiritual sensibility would have led them to mourn for the dishonour done to the Lords name, and also to pray that God would interfere by removing the evil-doer from their midst. Instead of this they were puffed up with a foolish and baseless pride.

In verses 1Co 5:3-5 we see the holy vigour and decision which marked Paul in contrast to the supine indecision of the Corinthians. They should have been gathered together in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and acted in the putting away of the wicked person from among themselves, as indicated in the last verse of the chapter. They had not done so. Paul steps into the breach, judges and acts with Apostolic authority, though associating the Corinthians with his judgment and act. Such an one as this he would deliver unto Satan, for even Satan may be used for the disciplining of a guilty saint.

Apparently the utmost limit to which Satan can go is the destruction of the flesh. In the case of Job he was not allowed to go to that limit, though he grievously tormented his flesh. But if the flesh be even destroyed and death supervene, it is in order that the spirit may be saved in the coming day. This, you see, supposes that the one coming under this extremest form of discipline is after all a real believer.

But there was another fact overlooked by the Corinthians, which showed the wrong and folly of their boastful spirit. They were like a lump of dough in which a little leaven had been placed. Now leaven has well-known properties. It ferments, until the whole lump is permeated by it. Thus they could not rightly look upon this sin of one of their number as being a thing in which they were not involved. The very opposite. It was indeed the old leaven, the very thing that had been rampant amongst them in their unconverted days, and would be very certain to spread amongst them again if unjudged. Hence they were to purge it out, by putting the wicked person away.

The effect of so doing would be to render them practically a new lump, as ye are unleavened. They really were a new and unleavened lump, as regards their place and condition before God; and they were so to act that they might be in practice what God had made them to be in Christ. Let us all seize the underlying principle of this, for it is the principle on which God always acts in grace. The law did indeed demand that we should be what we were not. Grace makes us to be what is according to God, and then calls upon us to act in accordance with what we are. You may apply this in a multitude of ways. You are always so to act, that ye may be… as ye are.

The Apostle uses a figure, of course, in speaking thus of leaven. But it is a most appropriate figure. Israels passover feast had to be eaten without leaven, and was followed by the feast of unleavened bread. Now the passover pointed forward to the death of Christ as its fulfilment, and the church during the whole time of its sojourn here is to fulfil the type of the feast of unleavened bread by eschewing all evil, and walking in sincerity and truth.

Just as Israel had to sweep all leaven out of their houses, so are you and I to sweep all evil out of our lives. And beside this there are certain cases in which assembly action is demanded by the Word of God. Such cases in the matter of moral evil are those mentioned in verse 1Co 5:11. The transgressor may be a man that is called a brother. Just because he has professed conversion he has been found inside the assembly and not without it; and because he is within he comes under its judgment and has to be put away. This putting away is not just a formal and technical excommunication. It is an action of such reality that all the saints were no longer to keep company in any way with the offender. When dealing with the men of the world on a business basis we cannot discriminate in this way as to their moral characters: but if a professed Christian is guilty of the sins mentioned in verse 1Co 5:11 we are to have done with him, and not own him as a Christian at all for the time being. Time future will reveal what he really is.

This chapter shows very clearly that while an evil-doer might be dealt with, while the apostles were alive, on the basis of apostolic authority and energy, the normal way is by the action of the assembly gathered together in the name of the Lord. Its jurisdiction only extends over those who are within it. Those who are without must be left to the judgment of God which will reach them in due season.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Admonitions to a Worldly Church

1Co 5:1-13

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

1. How quickly bad reports fly. The Apostle wrote, “It is reported commonly.” Just so. Evil deeds usually travel on the wings of the wind. They pass from lip to lip, until it seems they never stop.

Isa 53:1-12 opens with the words: “Who hath believed our report?” Good news travels but slowly, and when it reaches the ear is often not believed.

Why are people still quick to hear and to report sin in another, and slow to believe and report the wonderful salvation of the all-blessed Christ?

2. The sin in the Corinthian Church was fornication. What a dark cloud, to rest upon the Church of God, was this! Yet, alas, the church of today is even more sadly involved in shameful conduct.

It has now come to pass that church members may live in all things, as lives the unbelieving world, and remain members of many churches unrebuked. The truth is that in many places it is difficult to determine whether it is a churchly world, or a worldly church.

Sin is excused by the pulpit and practiced by the pew. Preachers often soft pedal the vilest of conduct. This is true not in any one part of our country, but in every part.

Recently we were talking to a Christian Chinese lady who had come to the United States for Bible instruction. She was asked if she would not be happy to have her brothers to come over to study, as they also are in Christian work in China. The Chinese sister in Christ held up her hands, and with horror in her face said: “No, no, I would not want them to come and see the way American Christians live!”

3. The sin in the Corinthian Church was even worse than the sin of the unbelieving Gentiles. The verse reads: “And such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles.”

What shall we do when those who profess godliness live blacker lives than the general run of the ungodly? Who are the leaders in the dance? the card tables? the theaters and movies? Do the unsaved outclass the church members in smoking? in wine drinking? in many evil practices? We fear not, at least in many places.

We need once again to hear the question of Rom 6:1 : “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” Then we need to note the horror of the Lord, as the Holy Spirit cries, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

4. The Church at Corinth even fell so low as to be puffed up about the horrible sin in their midst. They had no sorrow, no sense of shame, no aching heart. They even seemed to boast their folly. Perhaps they thought that free grace was a license to licentiousness.

Dear young people, the grace of God teaches “us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.”

Too many are excusing their sinful ways; some are even proud of their folly.

Is there no joy in Christ? No pleasures that never fade? Is the Christian young man or young woman forced to go to the world for their pastimes? God forbid! We are truly happy, only as we walk and talk with the Lord.

I. ARE OTHER CHRISTIANS RESPONSIBLE EVEN THOUGH ABSENT, FOR THE SINS OF OTHERS? (1Co 5:3)

1. Paul absent in body, but present in spirit judged the conditions at Corinth. We are willing to grant that Paul had preached in Corinth; that he was the founder, you might say, of the Church. We add, for this cause, Paul felt a personal responsibility for Corinth, and a special love for them.

Should we not be concerned also for conditions in church life in which we, personally, are in no wise a partaker? Is not the Body of Christ one Body? Are we not every one, members one of another?

Did not Jeremiah feel himself weighed down and overwhelmed by the sins of Israel? Hear him cry, “O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness.” Then he said, “I am pained at my very heart; * * I cannot hold my peace.”

Oh, beloved readers, is it nothing to us who pass by, that we see the professed church mixing herself with sinners?

2. Until we sound the alarm we are held responsible for the sins of others. If we see the people who name His Name, being led into paths of sin and shame; if we see them falling under Satan’s wiles, and hold our peace, shall we be held guiltless?

It is still true that no man lives to himself. We are our brother’s keeper. Hear the words of the Spirit in Ezekiel: “If the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; * * his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”

Let us not think to absolve ourselves from the present-day worldliness of the church by simply standing aloof therefrom. We must sound the alarm.

II. THE CALL TO CHURCH DISCIPLINE (1Co 5:4-5)

1. The responsibility of the local church. Mark the words: “When ye are gathered together.” Paul could not expel the sinning member at Corinth. He could command the Church so to do. Paul could, however, tell the Church that his spirit would be with them. He could tell them what they were ordered to do in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

2. The promised backing of Divine power. Paul told the saints at Corinth that they would have more than the approval of his spirit; they would also have the “power of our Lord Jesus.” What Paul was saying, in the Spirit of God, was that God would back the saints at Corinth, in their faithful discipline, with His presence and power.

We believe that if true discipline secures the power of the Christ, that the lack of that same discipline keeps back the power of the Lord Jesus.

Why are so many churches helpless today? It is because God hath written “Ichabod” over their doors. When sin is in the camp, unjudged, God steps out of the camp. He cannot and He will not bless the church that permits Achans to stay in, unpunished.

3. The call to discipline. Our verse says, “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.”

Many a saint has been blessed and helped by being turned over to Satan. The Lord said to Peter, “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.” When the Lord permitted Satan to have Peter, did Peter forever forsake his Master? Nay. He was, by the very fiery sifting, made the man who could preach the Pentecostal sermon. True discipline is restorative, not destructive.

III. THE LEAVEN OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (1Co 5:6)

1. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Leaven in the Word of God always stands for false doctrine and sin. In this study the one who was sinning, and retained in the church fellowship was compared to leaven, and the Spirit said, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”

Here is a warning to which we should all give heed. If we allow sin to remain in the church, the sinning one will lead others to sin. We sadly believe that it is next to impossible for the average young person to live in the twentieth century worldly church, without becoming worldly. When the pastor and deacons and elders and stewards wink at sin, they are only encouraging it.

Young people have told me again and again that their pastors have said that such things were all right.

2. The old leaven must be purged out. This is God’s command. Remember that the writer is not voicing his own opinion. God is speaking in His Word. When God speaks, every tongue should remain silent. There is no “if” about it. The Bible says, “Purge out * * the old leaven.”

Church discipline is almost a thing of the past. Church members may live as they list, and they still be retained in membership and in full fellowship.

Churches that used to stand for separation, have now utterly repudiated their former position. Worse than that, mammon and pleasure have come in and manned the church. How long, O Lord, how long shall these things be?

IV. THE CALL OF THE CROSS IS TO SEPARATION (1Co 5:7; 1Co 5:1.c., 8)

1. We eat an unleavened bread in commemoration of the death of Christ. There is a wide significance in all of this. It tells us that Christ, the sinless One, was sacrificed for us. The offering of God, on Calvary was a holy offering. From time immemorial the lambs of commanded sacrifice were designated to be firstlings of the flock, without spot and without blemish.

If He who died for our sins was a spotless, holy offering, shall we who are redeemed from sin by His precious Blood come and offer unto Him a sacrifice of evil? God forbid.

Besides this, we are told that the Cross in which we glory is a Cross by which we are crucified to the world, and the world is crucified unto us.

If our sins demanded a sinless Christ for our sacrifice; Christ demands a sin-washed and sin-delivered saint to follow Him.

2. We must therefore, offer not the leaven of malice and wickedness, but the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Rom 12:1-21 tells us that we arc to offer our bodies unto God as “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” We dare not come into His presence therefore, in the adoration of worship, with unclean hands and hearts, Isaiah cried, in the Spirit, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?” Then the Spirit said, “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well.”

God wants, yea, God demands, clean lips and clean hands from those who serve in His House. He cannot receive and He cannot approve and bless any man who is unclean.

3. God places a premium on Christian sincerity and truth. Anything that is a camouflage, or a “put on”; anything that is not truth, or that does not ring true, God cannot receive. How we poor mortals need to be filled with the Spirit that we may conquer the baser motives of the flesh and live out the fruit of the Spirit!

V. OUR COMPANY REVEALS OUR CHARACTER (1Co 5:9)

1. The old adage-We are like those with whom we associate. This adage generally speaking, is true. If we keep close fellowship with any class of people it is because we choose to belong to that class, and we will soon become like them. How can two walk together, unless they be agreed? Shall righteousness walk with unrighteousness? Shall light dwell with darkness? Shall a believer have comradeship with an unbeliever?

When a Christian turns aside and enters into the pathway of unbelievers, and of the wicked, he will, beyond doubt, become contaminated with their evil ways. The Word of God is final and without controversy. That Word says, “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.”

Evil communications will corrupt good manners. Here is God’s warning to young people concerning the ways of the evil woman: “Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths.”

When Christians have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, they simply reject God’s admonition and walk in the ways of death.

2. The meaning of the expression “not to company.” The word does not mean that the saint should stand aloof from contacting fornicators in the everyday walk of life, for then we would, as 1Co 5:10 says, needs go out of the world. We are not to company in the sense of personal fellowship with evil men and women.

In a certain church a man of the world said to us, “We have been accustomed to hunt and fish and have comradeship with the former pastor, and we had hoped to have the same with you,” I told him that I would eat with him, or sit with him, in case of need, if he wanted me to point him to God; but I could not make him a close companion or chum. How could I? His ideals of life and separation from evil were as far from mine, as the east is far from the west. I could not link up with him.

He who runs along with the wicked will soon become partaker with them in their evil deeds.

VI. THE MESSAGE OF SEPARATION OF CHRISTIAN FROM CHRISTIAN (1Co 5:11)

1. Abraham could not fellowship with Lot. In Genesis we read of how Lot went with Abraham. Time, however, showed that the two were by no means alike in their conception of life. The moment came when Abram said, “Separate thyself, * * from me.” The way of Lot soon revealed the wide and different ideals which prompted them.

Abraham walked with God, was a friend of God. Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom. Abraham looked to God for guidance, made God His leader; Lot judged after the sight of his eyes, and made selfish gain his guiding star. Abraham was a confessed tent-dweller, looking for a City whose Builder and Maker was God; Lot was a dweller in the gates of Sodom, looking for his rewards from the city which the wicked had built.

Abraham guided his children into the ways of God. Lot was as one who mocked to his sons-in-law. There was no common ground that could tie them together.

2. Carnal babes among those called, “brothers,” find no place of union with the spiritual who know God. How the Word rings forth, “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 incompatibility of so-called worldly church members who live after the flesh, and walk in the ways of worldiness, with those who are spiritual, walking after the Holy Ghost is everywhere seen in the churches of this day.

Where is the fellowship between those who love the world and those who are other-worldly?

If you smoke cigarettes, and I dare not, could not, would not, where is the fellowship? If you play cards, and revel in pastimes which to me are sinful, fleshly, and dangerous to moral and spiritual life, where is the fellowship?

VII. THE QUESTION OF JUDGMENT (1Co 5:12-13)

1. The Church does not judge the world. Our verse says, “What have I to do to judge them also that are without? * * Them that are without God judgeth.”

Here is room for earnest thought. We were pastor in a southern city. The pastors met together and sought to start something to clean up the city. They asked our church to join them in closing up the houses of ill fame, and the gambling dens, the pool rooms, and the drinking joints. We, to be sure, deplored all of these contaminating things. However, we quickly replied: “Brethren, we are commanded to judge those who are within, not without.”

Churches have a responsibility to judge those within their folds, who walk not after godliness. Paul, in the Spirit, says in the last verse of our chapter, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” That word is still spoken to the churches of this very hour. Yet, where is the church which obeys? Church discipline is, for the most part, a thing of the past.

2. God will judge them who are without. The task is too great for us. We cannot run the government, or attempt to clean up the filth of our cities. Why? Simply because of what we said, the task is impossible, and is not given unto the church. How helpless, hopeless, weak is all human reform business. Evil men and seducers will continue to wax worse and worse. Iniquity continues to abound. Perilous times still come. God’s judgment slumbereth not. He will judge the world for its sins.

We make one final plea-let us judge this rather, that we hold high among ourselves, the standards of right living given by the Lord to the Church. Let us judge this rather, that our members keep those things which are written in the Book.

AN ILLUSTRATION

Pure religion and undefiled is to keep oneself “unspotted” from the world. That expression is taken from the old custom in the purchase of sheep. When a shepherd sold a part of his flock, they marked the sheep with the name or monogram of the new owner, and those sheep then belonged to the new fold. They were to go to another enclosure, and when, that night, they sought for shelter, they were to go to the new fold. And to keep oneself “unmarked from the world” means to keep the world’s mark off, so that you will return to God’s Fold, and not in the world’s fold.

There is a perennial European herb called samphire, which grows by the cliffs of the sea, yet it is never found, it is said, on any part of the cliff which is not above the level of the tide. Just so Christian believers cannot grow, or indeed maintain their spiritual existence at all, unless they take care, however near they may be to the surging currents of humanity’s eager ambitions to secure themselves at a safe level above the changing tides of this world’s lower things and desires. “In” this new century world, but “not of it,” is the necessary condition of soul preservation.

-Publisher Unknown.

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

1Co 5:1. Commonly is from HOLOS, and Robinson defines it in this passage, “everywhere, commonly,” and Thayer’s definition is virtually the same. The meaning is that the condition was so well known that the fact was not questioned by anyone. Fornication is from PORNEIA, and Thayer gives the one word in our verse as his definition. But he adds the following information historically: “Properly of unlawful intimacy in general. That this meaning must be adopted will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Corinthians 6 how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected.” While on this phase of the subject, it will be well to read the “general remarks” at the beginning of chapter one. Since the ordinary evil of fornication was so prevalent and tolerated so liberally, it makes the attitude which Paul describes all the more significant.

A popular phrase, “living in adultery,” is of human coinage, and has no scripture foundation; therefore, we shall examine the word have in this verse. It is from the Greek word ECHO, and two full pages are used in the lexicon of Thayer in his definitions and explanations. The definitions (the parts in italics) include, “to have; to hold in the hand; to have possession of; to hold fast, keep; to regard, consider, hold as; to own, possess.” Thus the word can be seen to refer to the attitude of a man toward something, without necessarily considering what legal or moral principles are involved. In the present passage, Thayer explains the word to mean, “to have (use) a woman (unlawfully) as a wife.” The Lord requires his people to recognize the laws of the land, and they do not regard the fleshly union as constituting the marriage relation as does God (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5-6; 1Co 6:16), and that is why Thayer inserts the word “unlawfully” into his explanation. The Gentiles (or heathen), with all their leniency toward immoral conduct, did not endorse such a practice as was being done by this man, and that is the sense in which they would not so much as name it among themselves. Father’s wife means the man’s stepmother. The necessary inference is that his father had remarried, to a younger woman than his son’s mother. and the difference in age had induced this woman to become intimate with her husband’s son.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 5:1. It is actually reported that there is fornication among you. The word is used here in its widest sense for all violations of the seventh commandment.

and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles,[1] that one of you hath his fathers wifenot his own mother, but his step-mother (after the death of his father). Such connection, expressly forbidden in Lev 18:8, is abhorrent to nature. Though not absolutely unknown to the heathen, Cicero speaks of it as a crime incredible, and, with the single exception of the case he is speaking of, unheard of.[2] How such a church member should have been tolerated, even for a day, is the difficulty. To say, with some, that since the conversion of a Pagan to Judaism was held to dissolve all former relationships, a Christian convert might deem himself at liberty, and by the Church be allowed, to marry within the scripturally forbidden degrees, is absurd. For not only is there no evidence that the Jews at this time held any such principles, and every probability that they did not, but this connection was plainly regarded, alike by Jews and Gentiles, as monstrous. Still, if the social position of the parties was considerable, the office-bearers may have been reluctant to meddle with the case; and fearing to drive the man from bad to worse, they may have hoped, by tender treatment to soften his heart. And doubtless the laxity of morals at Corinth, which would not fail to leave its evil effects on real converts, tended to blunt the edge of that abhorrence which such a case was fitted to awaken.

[1] The word named, in the received text, appears to be a gloss from Eph 5:3.

[2] Scelus incredibile, et prater hanc unam (mulierem) in omni vita inauditum (Pro Cluentio, 5, 6).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

SANCTITY OF THE HUMAN BODY

One of the demoralizing things reported to Paul was the incest dealt with in chapter 5, and aggravated by the fact that the church instead of excommunicating the offender had become puffed up over it! His was an illustration of what their worldly wisdom in the Gospel had resulted in (1Co 5:1-2). Paul had already judged this person and directed the church to come together and solemnly deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This means (1) that Satan is an executioner of Divine punishment upon the saints in the present time, the saints who live in disobedience; (2) that the church, considered as the body of Christ, has the authority to deliver such an one into his hands for that purpose; (3) that the punishment is limited to the flesh, the human body, and cannot touch the soul; and (4) that the object is to affect the soul indirectly, by bringing the disobedient to repentance, confession, and the experience of that spiritual cleansing which will be the means of keeping him saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Luk 13:16; 2Co 12:7; 1Ti 1:20). In other words, the punishment is the means of grace necessary to retain such a saint in the fellowship of God (1Co 5:3-5). Note destruction in 1Co 5:5, which is the Greek word used in 1Th 5:3, 2Th 1:9, 1Ti 6:9, etc., and does not mean annihilation. The bearing of this is important on the subject of the future retribution of the wicked.

But before leaving the case of incest note the warning (1Co 5:6-7), the exhortation (1Co 5:8), and the added instruction (1Co 5:9-13). To permit sin to remain in the church unrebuked would mean the spread of it. The church was unleavened in that all who truly belonged to it had their guilt purged away by the sacrifice of Christ, therefore let them see to it that what was true of their legal standing before God, become true in actual experience. Paul had written them an earlier epistle of which we have no further record, but in which he had warned them not to keep company with fornicators. This did not mean that they could shun such in the necessary business of the world, but that they must do so in the fellowship of the church. They were not expected to act as judge in regard to the people of the world, but it was their duty to do so in the church, hence the excommunication of this wicked person was demanded.

The allusion to judging brings up the question of lawsuits in chapter 6. Saints should not bring their disputes before the worlds courts because of the incongruity of it (1Co 6:2-4). The language gives a most exalted conception to the dignity of the church when she shall be reigning with Christ in the ages to come. During the time being however, could they not find men among them competent to judge between their brethren? And if not, were it not better to suffer wrong?

There is ground for thinking that the law suit eliciting this rebuke, was linked in some way with the incest under consideration, as Paul now returns to the subject of the sanctity of the human body. The body is holy, (1) because in the sight of God it is washed, sanctified and justified. Therefore, while certain liberty in the use of it might be allowable to a Christian, it were inexpedient to press that liberty for the reason (as in Romans 14), that it would bring him under the power of carnality (1Co 6:9-12). But the body is holy, (2) because it is the Lords. The worldly-minded Greeks considered the law of adjustment as settling the matter. Meats were for the belly, and so the belly must have been made for meats, on which principle they would justify the gratification of any bodily passion. But meats and the physical organ to receive and assimilate them were temporary and would be destroyed, while the body in its essentiality would be raised from the dead. This was true because our bodies are the members of Christ who was raised from the dead. How could we employ the body in fornication under such circumstances (1Co 6:13-18)? Finally, the body is holy, (3) because it is the temple of the Holy Ghost, for which reason, and because we are bought with a price we are to glorify God in our body (1Co 6:19-20). It is not the seventh commandment which the apostle invokes in this case, but the sacredness of the believers new relationship to Jesus Christ.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the sin dealt with in this lesson?

2. What is the teaching of 1Co 5:4-5?

3. What may be learned from the use of destruction in 1Co 5:5?

4. What is the meaning of unleavened?

5. What allusion shows the great dignity of the church?

6. Of what three grounds is the body holy?

7. What is the meaning of 1Co 6:13?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

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.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Tolerating Sin in the Church

Fornication was a part of the worship of Aphrodite. A thousand priestesses of the goddess served as prostitutes who were available for the free use of temple visitors. Yet, a variety of fornication considered detestable by the heathens of this wicked city had been reported among the Christians. Apparently Paul learned of the sin in the church at Corinth through public gossip. This outrage came because a man committed fornication either with his stepmother, or else his mother ( 1Co 5:1 ; Lev 18:8 ; Lev 20:11 ; Deu 22:30 ; Deu 27:20 ).

Despite this terrible sin, the church still took pride in man’s wisdom and remained divided. Because of the pride, and division caused by it, no disciplinary action had been taken. Such sin should have caused great sorrow in the church. It should have called for immediate action. Paul’s quick judgment and action stood in sharp contrast to their lack of shame ( 1Co 5:2-3 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

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, , 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 womans 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 fathers wife His step-mother, and that during his fathers 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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, , 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 , 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, , and such fornication,…does not at all suit this meaning. The adjunct , among you, cannot, of course, depend on , it is reported; it must necessarily be referred to an , being, understood: It is reported that there is fornication among you. If it is so, the meaning of is determined by the gradation following: , 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 is used, 1Co 6:7, exactly in the same way.

The verb , 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 .

Instead of saying, his father’s wife, Paul might have used the word , 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 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?

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

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!”]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

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 Satans 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 adversarys 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 Gods 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.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

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 fathers wife.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 5:1. There is fornication among you. designates every species of illicit intercourse between the sexes. Our Saxon word forliggian properly expresses fornication, but here adultery and incest are comprised. In this sad case, not only the written law, but the examples of the gentiles condemned the offender, and reproached the church with indecision.

And such fornication as is not so much as named among the gentiles. Virgil mentions with contempt the fall of Anchemolus in battle, who had dared to defile the bed of his mother-in-law. neid. 10:388, 389.

Et Rhti de gente vetust Anchemolum, thalamos ausum incestare noverc.

1Co 5:2. Ye are puffed up. Some of the Corinthians, under specious pleas, had covered the offender, and wounded the faithful, who wished for Pauls return to sanctify the church. Now for any party to set themselves above the law of nature and of nations, in covering a presumptuous sin, indicated a haughty mind which merited his coming with a rod of discipline. The primitive church, after the example of the synagogue, used to mourn for any one who was separated from them by immoral conduct.

1Co 5:5. Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. On this subject sacred criticism has sent us down various opinions. Buxtorff, in his lexicon, on the word niddui, gives us examples of jewish excommunication, which in smaller crimes was for a limited period. But of more grievous sins, as in the text, they expound the words of the law, the soul that doeth ought presumptuously shall be cut off, as equivalent to the punishment of death. Theophylact understands this text in the same manner. Interitum carnis; hoc est, ut morbo eum maceret et tabescere faciat; that disease may emaciate and waste his constitution. Davids sin exposed him to this awful visitation, as may be inferred from Nathans words, who said, after hearing his repentance, The Lord hath put away (the punishment of) thy sin; thou shalt not die. But Augustine, sermon 68., understands this sentence simply of excommunication, while Chrysostom adheres to the former opinion, a power which allowed Satan to afflict the body. This power the apostle himself seems to have exercised on Alexander and Hymenus. 1Ti 1:20. Discipline is essential: upon all the glory there shall be a defence.

1Co 5:7-8. Purge out therefore the old leaven. The language here is Hebraical. Before the passover, the jews cleared their houses of leaven, and lived for seven days on biscuit bread, made simply of flour and water. Christ, the paschal lamb, being sacrificed for us, christians are called to put away from their hearts the leaven of malice and wickedness, and to be consecrated to the Lord. Our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed.

We must next purge out the leaven of wickedness from the church, that like a chaste virgin, she may be devoted to the Lord. Then we shall celebrate our sacraments in love and harmony, and all men will honour the church, which is honoured of heaven as the family of God.

1Co 5:11. Now I have written to you with such a one, no not to eat. He had written before, but now, being more fully informed by the arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, he wrote in stronger words, not to receive and return visits from excommunicated persons, as that would commit the moral glory of the christian character in public estimation, and the sour leaven would operate on the heart. These injunctions are understood to be addressed to the individuals concerned, for the church alone has the power of expulsion. She must be purged of sins so foul, or there will be no church. Yet even towards gross offenders, we must not withhold the civil duties and obligations of life.

REFLECTIONS.

In the sad case before us, the noble and paternal character of Paul cannot be too much admired. The hallowed zeal of Phinehas inspired his breast, who for the work of righteousness obtained a blessing. His aims were wise, his motives pure, to save the church from scandal, and so to punish the offender that his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The time of this interference was equally judicious. There was a leaven of gnostic licentiousness working in Greece, as in Asia, a leaven which greatly disturbed and afflicted the churches, by apologies for the flesh beyond the reach of shame. Those characters were vainly puffed up, as though their leniency had thrown a shade on the rigours of the law. Holiness requires that the man who has communion with dangerous connections shall be denied the sacramental bread.

When a brother is debarred from communion, as indeed must be the case with every one who lives in mortal sins, we must not associate with him as a bosom friend; that would tend to defeat all the prudent means of the church to bring him to repentance. Stains so foul require time for bleaching. But Paul, full of pity, in less than a year advised the Corinthians to receive the penitent offender back to communion, lest he should be over depressed with sorrow for his past sins.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1 Corinthians 5. The Case of Incest.Paul now passes from the parties to a case of immorality exceptionally hideous and, so far as his knowledge goes, unprecedented even among the heathen. It is everywhere reported (he probably means, though the wording is loose, that the scandal has spread far beyond Corinth) that a member of the church has taken his fathers wife as his wife (or concubine). The father was probably dead: to have taken her while he was still alive would have so gravely aggravated the offence that Paul could scarcely have failed to mention it explicitly. We cannot urge that Paul speaks of him in 2Co 7:12 as still alive, for the language here and in 2Co 2:5-11* does not suit the case of incest. Here Paul is concerned with the offence not simply in itself but with the scandal of its toleration by the church and its self-complacency with regard to it. Nor does 2Co 7:12 agree with Pauls solicitude in 1Co 5:5 for the offenders ultimate salvation. Nor in a case so grave could he have accepted the modification of his sentence suggested in 2Co 2:5 and permitted him to be reinstated. And obviously he could not have treated the churchs attitude to a sin so monstrous as a mere test of loyalty (2Co 2:9). Moreover, the wronged party of 2 Cor. felt the offence as a wrong (2Co 7:12); had the case been one of immorality, he could have taken summary proceedings against a son who ventured on so open a defiance of his fathers authority and rights. Presumably, then, the father was dead. No sentence is passed on the woman; probably she was a heathen. In spite of this rude shock their inflated self-esteem is not abated, whereas they ought to have been in deep distress, which should have led them to expel the offender. His own attitude is diametrically opposed to theirs. His decision is already taken, he did not need to be on the spot to form his judgment of conduct so flagrant. The matter must be dealt with in solemn assembly. The church is to be gathered together, not left to its own laxity in the handling of the offence. Convoked in the name of Jesus, it will be armed with His authority. The apostle will himself be presents, though not physically. Then the church must formally deliver to Satan a man guilty of conduct so heinous, in order that the sinful principle may be extirpated, and his spirit saved at the Second Coming. The passage is difficult. For the importance of the name of Jesus as imparting efficacy to the act, see Gen 32:24-30*. Paul will be present in spirit. Bodily absence will not mean real absence (Col 2:5). He will be actually present at the meeting. We must not weaken his words to mean what we mean, when we say, I cannot be there, but I shall be with you in spirit. Nor can we put it in a modern way, as if there was any thought of telepathy. We are moving here among ideas which have grown strange to us. The sentence is probably one of excommunication, not of death (p. 649).

Their boasting, Paul proceeds, is unseemly. For, though one member alone is guilty, his corruption contaminates them all, as the bit of leaven permeates all the dough. Let them purge out this active centre of infection. The Jews before the Passover searched their houses very rigorously to remove every particle of leaven from it. And it is fitting that Christians should do the same, that they may be actually what they are ideally, without leaven of sin, for they have a Passover, the Paschal victim being Christ. Then a different turn is given to the figure, the church, represented in 1Co 5:7 as a lump of dough, in 1Co 5:8 is thought of as keeping the feast not with the leaven of wickedness but the unleavened bread of sincerity. Somewhat abruptly Paul recalls the injunctions of a former letter (perhaps partially preserved in 2Co 6:14 to 2Co 7:1), forbidding association with those guilty of impurity. Apparently the church had misunderstood him, a little wilfully perhaps, to forbid intercourse with all such people, and declared his demand to be impracticable. Paul assents; they would have to leave the world altogether if they were to avoid contact with them entirely. He explains (1Co 5:11 read mg.) that, of course, he meant members of the church, adding those guilty of several other vices as men to be boycotted. They ought not to have misunderstood him, he implies, since obviously he had no qualification for judging non-Christians; their own practice is to judge Christians and leave outsiders to the judgment of God. That is their practice, but in this case it has fallen into abeyance; let them do their duty and excommunicate the offender (Deu 17:7 b).

1Co 5:7 b. This designation of Christ as the Paschal Lamb corroborates the Johannine date for the crucifixion (p. 743), the death occurring when the lambs were being killed for the Passover.

1Co 5:11. idolater: apparently some tried to combine Christianity with their old religion.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

The emphasis on human wisdom in Corinth was sadly accompanied by a case of revolting moral corruption. Philosophy is far removed from spiritual power, very commonly. Paul speaks here of a case well known, that of a man having his own stepmother. Such fornication as this was not even considered among the ungodly nations. This illustrates the fact that grace, once known, may be taken advantage of in a most unholy way, if it does not hold living power over the soul. And a believer may slip into such evil as even scandalizes the conscience of an unbeliever.

But more serious still is the self-complacent indifference of the Corinthian assembly to such evil in their midst. Proper moral sense would have humbled them in brokenness of heart before God, and in prayer for His intervention at least. If they did not know how to handle the case, yet certainly they could entreat the help of the Lord, that the offender might be taken away from them; for it was evident that the whole assembly was corrupted by this evil.

The facts of the case being unquestionably established, Paul had, though personally absent, judged absolutely, as though he had been present, in regard to this matter. If there had been any question of doubt as to actual facts or circumstances involved, he would not of course have written so positively. But when the case is clear, then action must not be delayed.

But it is the assembly that must act, not simply as complying with Paul’s word, but “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that is, as directly representing Him. It is their solemn responsibility, with His authority behind it. No assembly can be excused from the responsibility of judging evil when it is manifestly present. And all the saints are held responsible: the matter is not to be delegated to just a few in the assembly. The assembly is to be “gathered together” to express a united pronouncement on excluding from among themselves the person guilty of this evil. In this case too, Paul takes full responsibility for the instruction he gives them: his spirit would be thoroughly in concord with their judgment, along with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Putting this man away would be to deliver him to Satan. For he would be put outside all Christian fellowship, into Satan’s realm. He would have place in no Christian assembly, for there were no denominations into which he might carelessly be received; as is the case today. So that we today could not claim to be delivering one to Satan, though to put away such a man is certainly as binding now as then.

Yet it cannot be too strongly insisted that the good of the offender is most important in this case. Such discipline should properly tend to humble and break down the flesh with its evil activity, so as to cause in the end a proper restoration to the Lord, and to the assembly. The welfare of the spirit is a vital need here, and to this end the flesh and its lusts must be judged. To some people this may appear to be cruel, but it is actually the only way that true love can honestly take for the eventual good of the offender. It is God’s way, and He allows no substitute. At such a time their glorying was unbecoming, a mere show that ignored serious responsibility. Did they not know that a little leaven would permeate the whole lump?

Leaven is clearly evil allowed to act. If manifestly evil practice is allowed to be indulged, with no restraint on the part of the assembly, then the assembly becomes party to the evil. To become a new lump they must purge out the old leaven, and in this case the evil could not be purged out except by putting away the guilty man. The expression, “as ye are unleavened” is a reminder to them that their proper character as “in Christ” is that in which sin has no place whatever; and to be consistent with this holy character, they must judge and put away the evil.

Then Christ is spoken of as “our Passover… sacrificed for us.” Leaven was utterly forbidden in the Passover feast (Exo 12:8). For in the sacrifice of Christ sin is totally judged; and in keeping the feast that is a memorial of that blessed sacrifice, we are certainly called upon to do so consistently with the blessedness of the sacrifice itself. Of course, it is the Lord’s supper that is such a memorial feast, and “the old leaven of malice and wickedness” must be fully judged and refused as we are privileged to remember the sufferings of our Lord. “The unleavened of sincerity and truth” is only right and consistent here, and the assembly must be exercised to see that this is practiced. It is the Lord’s supper, and He certainly serves no contaminated food; but it is a feast that can give purest delight to the partakers, though our prime object there is to give Him delight.

But while the Lord’s supper, being the central expression of fellowship in the assembly, is specifically denied to a fornicator, yet this is not all. The saints of God were to have no fellowship with him whatever, not even to eat a common meal with him. There is a necessary distinction here, however. Fornicators of the world, covetous, extortioners, idolators, the believer is not told to avoid, for they are everywhere around. Their evil was not a direct dishonour to God, as was the case with one who was called a brother, and was guilty of a course of sinful practice. This was a denial in practice of the Lord he claimed to serve. Love for him would dictate this serious disciplinary treatment, as well as faithfulness to God, and concern for the purity of the assembly. In fact, added to this is the concern that the world itself would recognize that Christianity refuses to embrace evil, and specially in one who professes to be Christian.

It was not Paul’s responsibility (nor ours) to judge those outside the assembly. This is entirely in God’s hand, but judgment within the assembly is emphatically the responsibility of the assembly itself, and therefore of all in the assembly. Therefore, all were called upon to be in concord in putting away from among themselves the man who is here called “that wicked person.” They are allowed no other alternative. Certainly action of this kind must be always in a spirit of brokenness and humiliation, not of mere anger or of contempt; but it must be done.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

That there is fornication; that is, a case of fornication.–His father’s wife; his step-mother. Such a marriage was universally considered, even among the heathen nations, as criminal.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

DIVISION 2 ABOUT THE MISCONDUCT OF SOME CHURCH-MEMBERS CHAPTERS 5., 6

SECTION 7 THEY TOLERATE, BUT MUST EXPEL, A NOTORIOUS OFFENDER CH. 5:1-8

To speak generally, fornication is heard of among you, and a kind of fornication which is not even among the gentiles, for one to have his father’s wife. And you are puffed up; and you did not rather mourn in order that he who has done this work might be taken out of your midst. For I indeed, absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already pronounced judgment as though present, touching him who in this way has carried out this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, you having been gathered together and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus, to give up such a one to Satan, for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Not good is your ground of exultation. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens all the lump? Cleanse out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump; according as you are unleavened. For indeed our passover has been sacrificed, even Christ. So then let us keep feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of wickedness and maliciousness, but with unleavened cakes of sincerity and truth.

Besides the party-spirit which had permeated the whole church at Corinth, there were individual cases of special misconduct, in which all the church-members were more or less involved, and with which Paul must deal before he goes on to the matter mentioned in their letter to him. To the worst of these cases, the severe words of 1Co 4:21, with a rod, are a convenient stepping stone.

1Co 5:1. Fornication: literally intercourse with harlots, but often including, as being practically the same, all improper intercourse of the sexes. Of this sin, Paul first speaks generally; then of a specially aggravated kind of fornication. With the many other cases (2Co 12:21 to 2Co 13:2) Paul will himself deal when he comes. But to so great a degree, not found even at Corinth among the heathen, has fornication risen among you that some one has etc.

His father’s wife; or stepmother, recalls the same words in Lev 18:8; Deu 22:30. That he had actually married her, seems to be implied in has, denoting present possession, compared with has done and has carried out, 1Co 5:2-3, denoting a past act. Cp. Mar 6:17 f; Mat 14:4; Mat 22:28; 1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:29; 1Ma 11:9. This would explain the confidence with which Paul assumes the man’s guilt, and at once pronounces sentence. That he says nothing about the woman, suggests that she was not a Christian. From 2Co 7:12 we infer that the woman had a living and injured husband. He was probably the offender’s own father: for if she had married again she would hardly be called here his father’s wife. If so, the man was guilty, not only of incest, but of the worst kind of adultery. That this matter precedes 1Co 7:1 and is introduced with suddenness and surprise, implies that of this gross scandal nothing was said in the letter to Paul.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

1 Corinthians 5.

In 1 Cor. 3 and 4 the apostle has dealt with the strifes and divisions that existed in the assembly at Corinth. In the next section of his Epistle, comprising 1 Cor. 5 to 7, he treats of the great subject of holiness. In 1 Cor. 5 he speaks more especially of collective holiness, in 1 Cor. 6 of individual holiness, and in 1 Cor. 7 of holiness in the family relationships. He shows that collective holiness must be maintained by purging out the old leaven from the assembly and putting away a wicked person from amongst the saints, that individual holiness is maintained by self-judgment, and family holiness by the right use of the relationships established by God.

Already the apostle has reminded these saints that they are the temple of God, and, he says, The Spirit of God dwelleth in you. He then adds, The temple of God is holy (1Co 3:16-17). The presence of God is intolerant of evil, and demands holiness. Whatever form the house of God may take, whether a material building as in days of old, or a spiritual building composed of believers, the first great and unchanging principle of God’s house is holiness. As we read, Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever (Psa 93:5). Ezekiel sets holiness as the great leading principle of God’s house. This, says he, is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house (Eze 43:12).

(V. 1). The carnality of these believers was not only seen in that they ranged themselves under certain favourite teachers, thus making divisions, but it was further manifested in extreme laxity of morals. They were surrounded by the filthiness of heathenism, from which they had just emerged, and they had been used to think lightly of gross sins. Nevertheless, amongst them had occurred a case of unholiness of such a gross character that it would have shamed the heathen.

(V. 2). Moreover, there was not only this gross evil in their midst, but there was the tolerance of the evil-doer. Indeed they were puffed up rather than mourning. It is true that they had not received any apostolic directions how to deal with the offender, but spiritual instincts should at least have led them to humble themselves about the sin of this wicked person and desire his removal. We thus learn that, apart from distinct instructions involving definite responsibilities, there are the moral sensibilities of the new nature which should lead us to take a certain course. Cases may arise when a man’s course becomes such an exercise to the saints that they desire his removal from their midst and yet have no clear ground for action. In such cases this Scripture clearly indicates that we can spread the matter before the Lord and mourn before Him, with the assurance of His intervention in removing the troubler. The Lord, in such a case, does Himself what we ourselves may have to do when the case is clear. It may be well to note in this connection, that taken away in verse 2 and put away in verse 13 are similar words in the original. As one has said, Humiliation and prayer are the resource of those who feel a wrong, and know not yet the remedy.

(Vv. 3-5). The apostle proceeds to give them definite directions how to act in a proved case of public wickedness. He was absent in body but present in spirit, and had already judged as present, that when gathered together, according to the directions given by apostolic authority, and with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, by delivering such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. It is well to note carefully these directions and what they involve.

When ye are gathered together supposes the assembly in its normal condition, composed of all the saints in the locality, acting in the spirit which energised the apostle, and the power of the Lord Jesus with them. Gathered thus they would act as representing the Lord Jesus Christ in delivering such an one to Satan. This further supposes that outside the assembly there is the world dominated by Satan. The offender had behaved in such a way that he had proved himself unfit for the presence of the Lord, so was delivered over to Satan’s sphere – outside the assembly. Even so, he was not looked at as an unbeliever, for it was for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Today this could not be carried out as when things were normal. We could not deliver such an one unto Satan, for in the ruin of Christendom no company could say that outside their assembly there is nothing but Satan’s world; and no company could claim to include all the saints in one locality. Nevertheless, the injunction at the end of the chapter still remains, Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. The result may, indeed, be that the wicked person comes under the power of Satan, to learn to judge the flesh in himself that he failed to judge when in the place of the power of Christ.

(V. 6-8). The apostle proceeds to show the solemn result of the moral insensibility that allowed unjudged evil in their midst. Evil is presented under the figure of leaven. As a little leaven permeates the whole lump, so known, unjudged evil in any assembly of Christians will affect the whole company. The whole lump leavened does not imply that the whole company becomes incestuous like the evil-doer, but that all become defiled. Nothing more clearly condemns the false principle that known sin in the assembly concerns only the one directly guilty and does not involve all. It is not, therefore, enough to put away the wicked person; they must judge themselves for the low condition that could complacently tolerate evil. Thus they would purge out the old leaven and be in practice what they were in position before God in Christ, an unleavened lump as the result of the work of Christ.

We are thus exhorted to keep the feast, not with old leaven of indifference to sin, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with sincerity and truth. When the apostle says, Let us keep the feast, he is not referring exclusively to the Lord’s Supper, but rather to the whole period of the believer’s life on earth, of which the unleavened feast is a type.

(V. 9-13). In the verses that follow, the apostle shows that, in exhorting Christians to exercise holy discipline and live a life of sincerity and truth, he is referring to the Christian circle. To extend either to the man of the world would be unreal and impossible. If, however, one called a brother is living in open and unjudged sin, we are not to have company with him, or show any fellowship with him by eating a meal with him. It is no business of the Christian to attempt to put the world right by judging its evil. This God will do in His own time. Our responsibility is to judge any evil that may manifest itself in the Christian company. Therefore, says the apostle, put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

CHAPTER V.

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i. The Apostle proceeds from the schism of the Corinthians to deal with the scandal caused by incest among them: he blames them for allowing one living openly in incest to remain among them, and orders them to excommunicate him and hand him over to Satan.

ii. He bids them (ver. 6) purge out this and any other leaven of sin, in order that they may with purity celebrate the everlasting Passover, and so eat the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

iii. He orders them (ver.9) not to mingle with Christians that are open sinners; but as for heathens and unbelievers, he says that they are not under the jurisdiction of him or of the Church.

Ver. 1.-It is reported commonly among you. It is no vague rumour, but a well-ascertained fact.

1. The Gentiles who were not barbarians, but living civilised and honest lives, by natural instinct rejected all such intercourse of a step-son and step-mother. The poets praise Hippolytus for preferring to incur the anger of his father, Theseus, rather than yield to the lust of his step-mother, Phdra. When he was solicited by Phdra and refused to consent to the abomination, he was falsely accused by her to his father of having solicited her, and was torn asunder by him by four horses. There is, however, extant an example of such intercourse in Valerius Maximus (lib. v. De Par. Amore in Lib.), in the case of King Seleucus, who, on learning from his physician that his son Antiochus was sick unto death from love of his wife Stratonice, handed her over to him.

2. Theodoret, in his preface to this epistle, and Chrysostom here say that this fornicator was an eminent and powerful leader of the schism at Corinth, and this is why the Apostle proceeds so directly from the one sin to the other.

It may be asked whether this incestuous person took his father’s wife during his lifetime or afterwards. Some reply that he was dead; but it seems more likely that he was living, from the phrase used, “his father’s wife,” and also from the words of 2 Cor.vii. 12: “I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong,” which seems plainly to mean the father. Anselm and others take the view that the father was still alive. The man, therefore, was at once incestuous and an adulterer, and was obstinate in his sin; for without such obstinacy he would not have been excommunicated.

Ver. 2.-And ye are puffed up. You meanwhile are so occupied with your contentious pride that you neglect to correct this incestuous person by removing him from your society. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Anselm. Learn from this how careful not only prelates but all the faithful should be to remove from the Church scandals and their authors.

Vers. 3, 4.-For I verily as absent in body . . . in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. As it behoves a Pastor and Bishop to be always present by vigilant care, even though absent in bidy from the Church, I have already judged, i.e., determined; and by these words I now order that he be excommunicated and handed over to Satan, and that in the name of Christ, by His authority which I wield when I order and judge.

Chrysostom refers the clause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to what follows, when ye are gathered together. Paul means that they were to assemble, and in a public congregation of the Church they were to excommunicate the incestuous person. This clause, thirdly, may be referred to the words to deliver such an one to Satin; such delivery and execution of the sentence would be done in the power, name, and place of Christ.

Vers. 4, 5.-When ye are gathered together . . . deliver such an one unto Satan. I determine and order, O Corinthians, that when you are assembled in the Church, where I shall be present in my spirit, i.e., in mind, affection, and the authority given me by Christ, this incestuous person be excommunicated and handed over to Satan, who rules outside he Church, and is wont in this world to afflict the excommunicate not only in soul but also in body. It plainly appears from these words that the heretics are wrong in saying that the power of excommunicating resides in the whole congregation, and not in the prelates. On the contrary, he says, I have judged. All that the Apostle means is that the excommunication is to be publicly pronounced by whoever was presiding over the Church, that others might fear to do the like. Hence, he does not say that they were to assemble and hand him over to Satan, but when ye are gathered together I have determined to hand him over to Satan, i.e., through him who in the name of Christ is in charge of your Church in my place, and whose, therefore, it is to hand him over. In every state judgment takes place, not by the popular voice, but by the judges and magistrates.

The Apostles, moreover, uses this phrase to denote that this spiritual power has been given to the Church, and was exercised by himself and by prelates in the name of the Church, not in the sense that the whole Church has received it directly from Christ, but that Christ gave it to Paul and the other Apostles, not for themselves, but for the good of the Church; for as great confusion would ensue if each one had to be asked to give his sentence, the whole Church discharges this duty by the hands of its heads and rulers. Again, as excommunicating is liable to cause hatred, Paul wishes it to be done with the consent of the whole Church, that so he may win all to his side, and none may protect the powerful fornicator and accuse Paul of over severity. Hence he leaves, as it were, the judgment to them of his own free-will, and out of his modesty he makes them the assessors, approvers, and executors of the sentence pronounced by him of public excommunication of the fornicator by the hands of their president. So often prudent princes and generals will in a difficult and dangerous matter, when any great officer is to be punished, seek the opinion of other great officers, and what is more, leave the judging to them. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, Anselm.

With the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. Connect this with deliver, or, better still, as Ambrose does, with when ye are gathered together and my spirit. In other words, in this act of excommunication the Spirit is present with you, and still more with my spirit. For Christ has given His mighty power to His Church, and so the Church can, by her rulers and prelates, excommunicate and deliver over to Satan the contumacious.

Ver. 5.-To deliver such an one to Satan. Theophylact thinks that by these words Paul actually excommunicates the fornicator, but it is truer to say that by them he orders his excommunication to be carried out by the prelates in the Corinthian Church. If otherwise, he would have said, “I deliver,” instead of “I have judged to deliver;” and the same is borne out by his bidding that he be delivered over to Satan in public assembly of the Church.

2. Observe that the ancients understood this passage of the power and act of excommunicating which is lodged in the prelates of the Church. So Chrysostom, Anselm, Augustine, and others quoted by Baronius, p.448, A.D. 57.

2. The excommunicate are said to be delivered over to Satan, because being ejected from the fellowship of Christ and His Church, and being deprived of all its benefits, its prayers, suffrages, sacrifices, and Sacraments, of the protection of God, and of the care of pastors, they are exposed to the tyranny and assaults of the devil, whose rule is outside the Church, and who goes about against them more then before, and impels them to every kind of evil. Cf. Ambrose, Augustine (lib. iii. Ep. contra Parmen. c. 2), Jerome (Ep.1 ad Heliod.), Innocent (apud S. Aug. Ep.51).

For the destruction of the flesh. 1. That the devil may harass him with bodily sickness, wounds, and diseases; that his flesh may be brought low and its vigour be destroyed; that being thus humiliated he may learn wisdom. So say Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, cumenius, Anselm.

2. Ambrose and Anselm here, and S. Augustine in the passage just cited, explain it to mean, for the destruction of the pleasure of the body through this confusion and shame. But though shame may restrain a man from the external act when there is danger of its being commonly known, yet it does not do away with the inner desire of the heart, and therefore the first meaning, which is supported by more Fathers, is the more true and suitable.

From these Fathers we gather, though some deny it, that the excommunicate were formally handed over to the devil, and also corporally vexed and possessed by him, that they might learn to fear excommunication. Theodoret says this expressly here, and also at 1 Tim. iv. 20, and Ambrose too there says that this was the tradition of his forefathers, and that this is the strict meaning of “the destruction of the flesh.” Frequently examples of diabolic possession are to be found in the lives of the Fathers, and especially in the life of S. Ambrose by Paulinus. When Ambrose had delivered a certain man to Satan, devil at that very moment seized him and began to tear him. For this reason Christ, in S. Matt. x., gave, S. Thomas says, to the Apostles power over unclean spirits, both to expel them from and to admit them into men’s bodies to vex them. For other examples, cf. Delrio de Magia (lib. iii. p. 1, qu. 7), Petr. Phyrus (De Dmon. p. ii. c. 30), Lerarius (in Tob. c. 6, qu. 20).

That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. That the soul and mind, gaining from this punishment wisdom and renewal, may be saved in the day of judgment. Hence it appears that the end of excommunication should be borne in mind, which is to cause the excommunicate shame and distress, that he may be humiliated, and ask to be received back, and seek for pardon from God and the Church. The faithful, therefore, should pray secretly for him, and endeavour to win him back to unity.

Ver. 6.-Your glorying is not good. Your boasting yourselves in your worldly wisdom, which makes you say, “I am of Paul,” “I of Apollos,” is evil and out of place. It were better for you to cast down the eyes of your mind, since you allow so great a wickedness to exist among you. So Anselm; Theophylact adds from Chrysostom: “He implies obscurely and in a homely way that the Corinthians themselves prevented this fornicator from coming to a better mind, by glorying in his name; for he was one of their wise teachers.”

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. As yeast penetrates every part of a mass of dough with its taste and sharpness, so does this one taint of the fornicator penetrate and stain all of you: firstly, because for the sake of one man the wrath of God may be kindled against you all, and against the whole Church which suffers him, as Ambrose and Anselm say; and secondly, if this man go unpunished, others may follow his example, and this one may cause many to stumble. So S. Chrysostom. In other words, remove this scandal, and separate the man from the Church by excommunicating him.

Ver. 7.-Purge out, therefore, the old leaven. Eject this fornicator from your society, lest like leaven he infect the whole. It follows that not the predestinate alone, or hidden sinners, but that public sinners, like this fornicator, are in the Church till they are excommunicated. So Chrysostom. Although the Apostle refers primarily to the incest of the fornicator, yet Chrysostom and Anselm understand leaven more generally to be fornication, and its concealment, and any kind of wickedness and vice, which by parity of reasoning the Apostle orders to be removed from the soul of every individual and from the whole Church.

That ye may be a new lump. That your Church may be once more pure.

As ye are unleavened. As Chrysostom and Anselm say, as by baptism you were made unleavened, i.e., pure from the leaven of sin, so consequently you are, or ought to be, from thenceforth unleavened, or pure and holy, by calling and profession. It is a Hebraism to say that what ought to be is; and Christians accordingly are frequently called Saints, because they ought to be. Others take ye are strictly to mean that, excepting the one incestuous person, they were all unleavened or pure.

This unleavenedness of heart and life is put before each one at baptism, both in words and ceremonies, by the Church, when, after signing the head with the sacred Chrism, she clothes the newly baptized person with a white robe, and, holding out a lighted candle, says to him: “Receive this holy and spotless white robe, and may you keep it without spot till you take it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may you gain eternal life and live for ever and ever. Amen.” Or as S. Jerome has it in his letter to Damasus: “Receive this burning and blameless light, guard well thy baptism, keep God’s commandments, that when the Lord cometh to the wedding thou mayest meet Him, together with all His Saints, in the court of heaven; and mayest thou gain eternal life and live for ever and ever. Amen.” By the white robe and the lighted candle are signified (1.) a pure and exemplary life and conversation; (2.) freedom from the power of sin and the devil; (3.) victory and triumph ever them; for the Romans used to give their servants a white robe when they set them free, white being the colour of triumph. Of this garment S. Ambrose (Lib. de Iis qui Initiat. c. 7), addressing the newly baptized, says? “You have received white garments for a testimony that you have cast away the slough of sins, and put on the holy garb of innocence.” Paulinus thus sings of the same thing;-

“Thence from the sacred font the priest their father brings

The infants, snowy-white in body, heart, and dress.”

Cf. also S. Augustine, Lactantius, and Victor of Utica, whose words I quoted in Rom. vi. 4.

Hence the Saturday and Sunday immediately after Easter Day are called Sabbatum in albis and Dominica in albis, because the neophytes then used to lay aside their white garments. Yet, as Baronius has rightly pointed out (A.D. 58, p. 606), they received a white Agnus Dei as it was called, made of paschal wax, and blessed by the Bishop, and wore it hung from their neck, that they might be ever reminded of purity and innocence, and might learn from Christ, the Paschal Lamb, to be thenceforth in every work unleavened, pure, meek, and lowly of heart.

For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. The word for denotes: I rightly adjure you to be unleavened and pure, because you are keeping the Passover, in which the Jews had no leavened thing. As the Passover was a type of Christ, so were the unleavened loaves a type of the baptismal innocence and pure life of Christians. The Apostle’s argument is based on the allegorical meaning of the Passover and the unleavened bread.

The word Passover has its rise from the passing over of the angel of the houses of the Israelites when he saw the blood of the lamb that had been sacrificed for the purpose smeared on the doorposts. Then by a happy metonymy the lamb sacrificed is called the Passover, or the Passover victim, i.e., the victim slain for the passing over of the angel. Then, too, the day itself, and the feast at which this happened, and its annual memorial are called the Passover.

Allegorically this lamb signified Christ. Our Passover, i.e., our Pascal Lamb, Christ, was sacrificed for us, that as many as are washed with the Blood of His Passion in baptism and the other Sacraments may be defended in safety from the destroying angel, who passes over them, and lights the unbelieving and the wicked, who have not been washed with the blood of Christ, to kill them with eternal death. For Christ has rescued hose that have been so washed from Pharaoh’s yoke, that is, from the yoke of the devil and of sin, and having set them perfectly free He has loaded them with all gifts and graces, and daily is adding more.

S. Bernard (Serm.1 in die Pasch,) thus moralises on this passage: “Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed. Let us embrace those virtues commended to us by His Cross-humility, patience, obedience, and charity. On this great festival let us carefully consider what it is that is commended to us. It is a resurrection, a passover, a transmigration. For Christ, my brethren, did not to-day fall again but rose again: He did not return, He passed over: He transmigrated-did not go back. The very feast that we are celebrating is called the Passover, not “the returning;” and Galilee, where He who rose promises to show Himself to us, does not speak of going back but of transmigration . . . We have lately given up ourselves to mourning, to penitence, and prayer-to heaviness and fasting. If we have bewailed our negligences, why should we now return to them? Shall we as before be again found inquisitive, as fond of talking as before, slothful and negligent as before, vain, suspicious, backbiters, wrathful, and again involved in all the other vices which we but lately were grieving over? I have washed my feet: how shall I again defile them? Alas! the resurrection of the Saviour is made the time for sinning, the place in which to fall. Revellings and drunkenness return, chambering and wantonness are sought after, as though it was for this that Christ rose, and not for our justification. This is not a passing over, but a going back. For this cause, as the Apostle says, many are weak and sickly and many sleep. Therefore is it that in different places are there so many deaths, specially now.” S. Anselm, on 1 Cor. xi. 30, makes the same observation, viz., that at Easter diseases walk abroad and many die, because of so many making an unworthy communion, and either not making proper atonement for their sins, or else going back on them.

Ver. 8.-Therefore let us keep the feast. The Latin has, “Let us banquet,” because feasts were wont to be celebrated with solemn banquets in token of rejoicing.

The feast here is either the feast of the Passover or of unleavened bread. And notice that, according to Exod.xii., the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, or of the Passover, was not, strictly speaking, the feast, but the following morning was, which was called the feast of the first day of unleavened bread, and lasted for seven days, during which nothing but unleavened bread was allowed to be eaten; and before those days, viz., in the fourteenth day of the first month Nisan, instead of the Paschal lamb that had been killed, they killed other Paschal victims, viz., burnt offerings and peace-offerings. Cf. Num 28:19. The meaning, therefore, is this: Christ, having been sacrificed for us as our Passover, has redeemed us, and has begun for us the feast of unleavened bread. Therefore, after this Passover, after the death and redemption of Christ, let us keep this spiritual feast of unleavened bread, that we may be unleavened and pure, and may consequently feed on unleavened things, i.e., may enjoy purity of life for the seven says of our life. As all our time is measured by seven revolving days, seven is a symbol of completeness, and therefore the seven days mentioned here denote the whole of life here below. Through that life we are to keep up the memorial of Christ’s redemption, of our Paschal Lamb, by purity of life that befits Christians, and by sacrifices and praises.

But since the evening of the Passover could also be joined with the following morning, as the Jews reckoned their feasts from evening to evening, hence this evening may also be called a feast, or at all events a festive sacrifice and banquet of a lamb. Hence the Latin version is, “Let us banquet.” Hence a second meaning can be gathered, which is this: “Let us keep a perennial Passover: let the Paschal feast be to us a continuous feast throughout the day of life, by our daily feeding on Christ, our Paschal Lamb, and His good gifts; and let us festively banquet on him spiritually, by faith, hope, and charity, or even really in the Blessed Sacrament, and that with the unleavened bread if sincerity and truth,” Cf. Chrysostom and Anselm. For though the Pascal lamb, as it was slain, was a figure of Christ slain on the Cross, yet as far as it was eaten with unleavened bread it was rather a figure of the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist. In the same way the Passover here is understood of Christ sacrificed and eaten in the Eucharist by S. Cyprian (Serm. de Cna Dom.). by Nazianzen (Orat. de Pascha), by Chrysostom (Serm. de Pron. Juda), by Ambrose (In Luc. i.). by Jerome and Origen (in S. Matt. 26). Hence S. Andrew the Apostle said to King geas: “I daily sacrifice an immaculate Lamb, which remains whole and living, even when all the people have eaten of It,” Hence, too, it is that the Church reads this passage of the Apostle’s for the Epistle of Easter, when she bids all to communicate and to feed on this Paschal Lamb, although in the Primitive Church the faithful ate of it daily, as the Apostle here exhorts.

Chrysostom gives us a moral meaning here when he says that we should banquet, not because it is Easter of Pentecost, but because all time is given to the Christian for so banqueting, because of the excellency of the gifts conferred. He says: “What good thing is there that the Son of God has not given you by being born and slain for you? He has set you free and called you into His kingdom. Why then do you not banquet always?” Hence S. Sylvester said that all days were festal days, because the Christian ought to feast every day, and be at leisure for God, and keep the spiritual feast. So too S. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. 7) says: “The whole life of the righteous is one solemn and holy feast day.”

Neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness. Vatablus translates wickedness, craftiness, and others render it depravity; for he is wicked who does evil mediately, and with guile and fraud. The Latins of old by malice and wickedness signified all the vices and crimes of men. Hence the saying of Publius Africanus (apud Gell. lib. vii. c. 11) that all the evil and disgraceful and heinous things that men do are briefly comprehended in two words, malice and wickedness.

But with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. A Hebraism. Let us banquet, not on literal unleavened bread, but on spiritual, i.e., on sincerity (or purity) and truth-not merely truth of the mind or of the mouth, but the truth of life, the Christian righteousness; in other words, any duty of virtue that Christians are bound to, especially simplicity, faithfulness, and truth. Sincerity is here opposed to malice, and truth to wickedness.

Ver. 9.-I wrote unto you. In ver. 2 of this chapter. So Theodoret and Chrysostom. But S. Thomas, Lyranus, Cajetan think that S. Paul wrote this in another former epistle which has perished.

Not to company with fornicators . . . for then must ye needs go out of the world. When I bade you have no fellowship with fornicators I did not mean what you were to avoid fornicating pagans, for then you would have to go out of the world, for the whole world is full of pagans, who are either fornicators, or covetous, or idolaters; but if any one who is a brother, says S. Ambrose, if any one who is a Christian, is publicly spoken ill of as a fornicator, then avoid him.

Ver. 11.-If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator. This admits of being rendered, “If any man that is a brother be called a fornicator.” Hence S. Augustine (contra Parmen. lib. iii. c. 2) says: “Is called,” i.e., is judged and declared guilty of fornication.

Or covetous . . . or an extortioner. The first word here denoted one who stealthily seizes others’ goods by fraud, the second one who seizes them by open violence. But the miser who clings to his money too tenaciously will not be excluded from heaven, unless he refuse to give alms to the poor in their great necessity: much less is he to be excluded from the society of the faithful. But the Apostle orders this in this verse. Therefore “covetous,” as I said, must mean a thief of robber. Cf. 2Co 7:2 and 2Co 12:18.

Ver. 12.-For what have I to do to judge them that are without? To judge is here and elsewhere the same as to condemn and punish fornicators, e.g., by excommunicating them, which is done in order to warn others who are pure and innocent not to mingle with them. When S. Paul says that they were not to mingle with fornicators, he at the same time judges indirectly the fornicators, by ordering them to be avoided and shunned as guilty and dangerous. He condemns not those outside the Church, because as pagans they were beyond his jurisdiction, but only the faithful, who were subject to his pastoral care.

It may be said that if we cannot judge them that are without, the Church cannot judge and punish heretics and schismatics, for they are without, i.e., outside the Church. I answer that they are without the Church in the sense of being deprived of all her benefits, but within so far as jurisdiction is concerned. The very fact that they still retain the character of baptism makes them subject and bound to the Church. Hence they are bound to observe the fasts and feasts and other laws of the Church; and they are in the Church as slaves in a family, or as criminals imprisoned in a city.

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

5:1 It is {1} 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.

(1) They are greatly to be reprehended who by allowing wickedness, set forth the Church of God to be mocked and scorned by infidels.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul’s judgment of this case 5:1-5

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

"Immorality" is a general translation of the Greek word porneia, which means fornication, specifically sexual relations with a forbidden mate. The precise offense in this case was sexual union with the woman who had married the man’s father (cf. Mat 5:27-28; Mat 5:32; Mat 15:19; Mat 19:9; Mar 7:21). Had she been his physical mother other terms would have been more appropriate to use. Evidently the woman was his step-mother, and she may have been close to his own age.

"The woman was clearly not the mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of porneia rather than moicheia [adultery] 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." [Note: Robertson and Plummer, p. 96. Cf. Barclay, p. 49.]

The verb translated "to have" (present tense in Gr.), when used in sexual or marital contexts, is a euphemism for a continuing relationship in contrast to a "one night stand" (cf. 1Co 7:2). This man and this woman were "living together." Since the man is the object of Paul’s censure, it seems that the woman was not in the church.

"The word porneia (’sexual immorality’) in the Greek world simply meant ’prostitution,’ in the sense of going to the prostitutes and paying for sexual pleasure. The Greeks were ambivalent on that matter, depending on whether one went openly to the brothels or was more discreet and went with a paramour [lover]. But the word had been picked up in Hellenistic Judaism, always pejoratively, to cover all extramarital sexual sins and aberrations, including homosexuality. It could also refer to any of these sins specifically, as it does here. In the NT the word is thus used to refer to that particular blight on Greco-Roman culture, which was almost universally countenanced, except among the Stoics. That is why porneia appears so often as the first item in the NT vice lists, not because Christians were sexually ’hung up,’ nor because they considered this the primary sin, the ’scarlet letter,’ as it were. It is the result of its prevalence in the culture, and the difficulty the early church experienced with its Gentile converts breaking with their former ways, which they did not consider immoral." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., pp. 199-200.]

The leaders of Israel and the early churches regarded fornication of all kinds as sin to avoid (Lev 18:8; Deu 22:30; Deu 27:20; Act 15:20; Act 15:29; Act 21:25). If the guilty man’s father was still alive and married to the woman, adultery would also have been involved. Most interpreters have concluded that this was a case of incest rather than incest and adultery. If Paul had been living under the Mosaic Law, he should have prescribed the death penalty for both the guilty man and the woman (Lev 18:8; Lev 18:29), but he lived under the New Covenant and advocated a different penalty (1Co 5:5). As depraved as Greek culture was, even the pagans looked down on incest, and Roman law prohibited it. [Note: Johnson, p. 1236.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 8

EXCOMMUNICATION; OR, PURGING OUT THE OLD LEAVEN

FROM the subject of the factions in the Corinthian Church, which has so long detained Paul, he now passes to the second division of his Epistle, in which he speaks of the relation the Christians should hold to the heathen population around them. The transition is easy and such as befits a letter. Paul had thought it advisable to send Timothy, who perfectly understood his mind, and could represent his views more fully than a letter; but it now occurred to him that this might be construed by some of the vain popular leaders in the Church into a timorous reluctance on his part to appear in Corinth and a sign that they were no longer to be held in check by the strong hand of the Apostle. “Some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.” He assures them therefore that he himself will come to Corinth, and also that the leaders of the Church have little reason to be puffed up, seeing that they have allowed in the Church an immorality so gross that even the lower standard of pagan ethics regards it as an unnameable abomination; and if once it is named, it is only to say that not all the waters of ocean can wash away such guilt. Instead of being puffed up, Paul tells them, they should rather be ashamed and at once take steps to put away from them so great a scandal. If not, he must come, not in meekness and love, but with a rod.

The Corinthian Church had fallen into a common snare. Churches have always been tempted to pique themselves on their rich foundations and institutions, on producing champions of the faith, able writers, eloquent preachers, on their cultured ministry, on their rich and aesthetic services, and not on that very thing for which the Church exists: the cleansing of the morals of the people and their elevation to a truly spiritual and godly life. And it is the individuals who give character to any Church. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Each member of a Church in each days conduct in business and at home stakes, not only his own reputation, but the credit of the Church to which he belongs. Involuntarily and unconsciously men lower their opinion of the Church and cease to expect to find in her a fountain of spiritual life, because they find her members selfish and greedy in business, ready to avail themselves of doubtful methods; harsh, self-indulgent, and despotic at home, tainted with vices condemned by the least educated conscience. Let us remember that our little leaven leavens what is in contact with us; that our worldliness and unchristian conduct tend to lower the tone of our circle, encourage others to live down to our level, and help to demoralise the community.

In the judgment Paul pronounces on the Corinthian culprit two points are important. First, it is noteworthy that Paul, Apostle though he was, did not take the case out of the hands of the congregation. His own judgment on the case was explicit and decided, and this judgment he does not hesitate to declare; but, at the same time, it is the congregation which must deal with the case and pronounce judgment in it. The excommunication he enjoined was to be their act. “Put away from among yourselves,” he says, {1Co 5:13} “that wicked person.” The government of the Church was in Pauls idea thoroughly democratic; and where the power to excommunicate has been lodged in a priesthood, the results have been deplorable. Either, on the one hand, the people have become craven and have lived in terror, or, on the other hand, the priest has been afraid to measure his strength with powerful offenders. In our own country and in others this power of excommunication has been abused for the most unworthy purposes, political, social, and private; and only when it is lodged in. the congregation can you secure a fair judgment and moral right to enforce it. There is little fear that this power will nowadays be abused. Men themselves conscious of strong propensities to evil and of many sins are more likely to be lax in administering discipline than forward to use their power; and so far from ecclesiastical discipline producing in its administrators harsh, tyrannical, and self-righteous feelings, it rather works an opposite effect, and evokes charity, a sense of solemn responsibility, and the longing for the welfare of others which lies latent in Christian minds.

But, second, the precise punishment intended by Paul is couched in language which the present generation cannot readily understand. The culprit is not only to be excluded from Christian communion, but “to be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved.” Many meanings have been put upon these words; but after all has been said, the natural and obvious meaning of the words asserts itself. Paul believed that certain sins were more likely to be cured by bodily suffering than by any other agency. Naturally sins of the flesh belonged to this class. Bodily suffering of some kinds he believed to be the infliction of Satan. Even his own thorn in the flesh he spoke of as a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him. He expected also that the judgment pronounced by himself and the congregation on this offender would be given effect to in Gods providence; and accordingly he bids the congregation hand the man over to this disciplinary suffering, not as a final doom, but as the only likely means of saving his soul. If the offender mentioned in the Second Epistle is the same man, then we have evidence that the discipline was effectual, that the sinner did repent and was overwhelmed with shame and sorrow. Certainly such an experience of punishment, though not invariably or even commonly effectual, is in itself calculated to penetrate to the very depths of a mans spirit and give him new thoughts about his sin. If when suffering he can acknowledge his own wrongdoing as the cause of his misery and accept all the bitter and grievous penalties his sin has incurred, if he can truly humble himself before God in the matter and own that all he suffers is right and good, then he is nearer the kingdom of heaven than ever he was before. Substantially the same idea as Pauls is put in the mouth of the Pope by the most modern of poets:-

“For the main criminal I have no hope

Except in such a suddenness of fate,

I stood at Naples once, a night so dark,

I could have scarce conjectured there was earth

Anywhere, sky, or sea, or world at all,

But the nights black was burst through by a blaze;

Thunder struck blow on blow;

Earth groaned and bore,

Through her whole length of mountain visible:

There lay the city thick and plain with spires,

And, like a ghost disshrouded, white the sea.

So may the truth be flashed out by one blow,

And Guido see one instant and be saved.”

The necessity for keeping their communion pure, for being a society with no leaven of wickedness among them, Paul proceeds to urge and illustrate in the words, “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us purge out the old leaven.” The allusion was of course much more telling to Jews than it can possibly be to us; still, if we call to mind the outstanding ideas of the Passover, we cannot fail to feel the force of the admonition. That must be the simplest explanation of the Passover which Jewish parents were enjoined to give to their children, in the words, “By strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And it came to pass when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, with the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the firstborn being males, but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.” That is to say, all the firstborn of animals they sacrificed to God, slaying them on His altar, but instead of slaying the human firstborn they redeemed them by sacrificing a lamb in their stead. The whole transaction of the night of the first Passover stood thus: God claimed the Israelites as His people; the Egyptians also claimed them as theirs. And as no warning would persuade the Egyptians to let them away to serve God, God at last forcibly delivered them, slaying the flower of the Egyptian people, and so crippling and dismaying them as to give Israel opportunity of escape. Being thus rescued that they might be Gods people, they felt bound to continue to own this; and in accordance with the custom of their time they expressed their sense of it by sacrificing their firstborn, by presenting them to God as belonging to Him. By this outward sacrificial act engaged in by every family it was acknowledged that the whole nation belonged to God.

Christ, then, is our Passover or Paschal Lamb, in the first place, because through Him there is made the acknowledgment that we belong to God. He is in very truth the prime and flower, the best representative of our race, the firstborn of every creature. He is the one who can make for all others this acknowledgment that we are Gods people. And He does so by perfectly giving Himself up to God. This fact that we belong to God, that we men are His creatures and subjects, has never been perfectly acknowledged save by Christ. No individual or society of people has ever lived entirely for God. No man has ever fully recognised this apparently simple truth, that we are not our own, but Gods. The Israelites made the acknowledgment in form, by sacrifice, but Christ alone made it in deed by giving Himself up wholly to do Gods will. The Israelites made the acknowledgment from time to time, and with probably more or less truthfulness and sincerity, but Christs whole spirit and habitual temper of mind were those of perfect obedience and dedication.

Only those of us, then, who see that we ought to live for God can claim Christ as our representative. His dedication to God is unmeaning to us if we do not desire to belong entirely to God. If He is our Passover, the meaning of this is that He gives us liberty to serve God; if we do not mean to be Gods people, if we do not resolutely purpose to put ourselves at Gods disposal, then it is idle and false of us to talk of Him as our Passover. Christ comes to bring us back to God, to redeem us from all that hinders our serving Him; but if we really prefer being our own masters, then manifestly He is useless to us. It is no matter what we say, nor what rites and forms we go through; the one question is, Do we at heart wish to give ourselves up to God? Does Christ really represent us, -represent, by His devoted, unworldly life, our earnest and hearty desire and intention?

Do we find in His life and death, in His submission to God and meek acceptance of all God appointed, the truest representation of what we ourselves would fain be and do, but cannot?

It is through this self-sacrifice of Christ that we can become Gods people, and enjoy all the liberties and advantages of His people. Christ becomes the representative of all whose state of mind His sacrifice represents. If we would fain be of one mind and will with God as Christ was, if we feel the degradation and bitterness of failing God and disappointing the trust He has confided in us His children, if our life is wholly spoiled by the latent feeling that all is wrong because we are not in harmony with the wise and holy and loving Father, if we feel with more and more distinctness, as life goes on, that there is a God, and that the foundation of all happiness and soundness of life must be laid in union with Him, then Christs perfect surrender of Himself to the will of the Father represents what we would but cannot ourselves achieve. When the Israelite came with his lamb, feeling the attractiveness and majesty of God, and desiring to pour his whole life out in fellowship with God and service of Him, as entirely as the life of the lamb was poured out at the altar, God accepted this symbolic utterance of the worshippers heart. As the worshipping Israelite saw in the animal yielding its whole life the very utterance of his own desire, and said, Would God I could as freely and entirely devote myself with all my powers and energies to my Father above; so we, looking at the free, and loving, and eager sacrifice of our Lord, says in our hearts, Would God I could thus live in God and for God, and so become one with perfect purity and justice, with infinite love and power.

The Paschal Lamb then was in the first place the acknowledgment by the Israelites that they belonged to God. The lamb was offered to God, not as being itself anything worthy of Gods acceptance, but merely as a way of saying to God that the family who offered it gave themselves up as entirely to Him. But by thus becoming a kind of substitute for the family, it saved the firstborn from death. God did not wish to smite Israel, but to save them. He did not wish to confound them with the Egyptians, and make an indiscriminate slaughter. But God did not simply omit the Israelite houses, and pick out the Egyptian ones throughout the land. He left it to the choice of the people whether they would accept His deliverance and belong to Him or not. He told them that every home would be safe, on the doorpost of which there was visible the blood of the lamb. The blood of the lamb thus provided a refuge for the people, a shelter from death which otherwise would have fallen upon them. The angel of judgment was to recognise no distinction between Israelite and Egyptian save this of the sprinkled, stained doorposts. Death was to enter every house where the blood was not visible; mercy was to rest on every family that dwelt under this sign. Gods judgment was out that night all over the land, and no difference of race was made anything of. They who had disregarded the use of the blood would have no time to object, We be Abrahams seed. God meant that they should all be rescued, but He knew that it was quite possible that some had become so entangled with Egypt that they would be unwilling to leave it, and He would not force any-we may say He could not force any-to yield themselves to Him. This rendering of ourselves to God must be a free act on our part; it must be the deliberate and true act of a soul that feels convinced of the poverty and wretchedness of all life that is not serving God. And God left it in the choice of each family-they might or might not use the blood, as they pleased. But wherever it was used, safety and deliverance were thereby secured. Wherever the lamb was slain in acknowledgment that the family belonged to God, God dealt with them as with His own. Wherever there was no such acknowledgment, they were dealt with as those who preferred to be Gods enemies.

And now Christ our Passover is slain, and we are asked to determine the application of Christs sacrifice, to say whether we will use it or no. We are not asked to add anything to the efficacy of that sacrifice, but only to avail ourselves of it. Passing through the streets of the Egyptian cities on the night of the Passover, you could have told who trusted God and who did not. Wherever there was faith there was a man in the twilight with his basin of blood and bunch of hyssop, sprinkling his lintel and then going in and shutting his door, resolved that no solicitation should tempt him from behind the blood till the angel was by. He took God at His word; he believed God meant to deliver him, and he did what he was told was his part. The result was that he was rescued from Egyptian bondage. God now desires that we be separated from everything which prevents us from gladly serving Him, from every evil bias in us which prevents us from delighting in God, from all that makes us feel guilty and unhappy, from all sin that enchains us and makes our future hopeless and dark. God calls us to Himself, meaning that we shall one day get forever past all that has made us unfaithful to Him and all that has made it impossible for us to find deep and lasting pleasure in serving Him. To us He throws open a way out from all bondage, and from all that gives us the spirit of slaves: He gives us the opportunity of following Him into real and free life, into glad fellowship with Him and joyful partnership in His ever beneficent, and progressive work. What response are we making? In the face of the varied difficulties and deluding appearances of this life, in the face of the complexity and inveterate hold of sin, can you believe that God seeks to deliver you and even now designs for you a life that is worthy of His greatness and love, a life which shall perfectly satisfy you and give play to all your worthy desires and energies?

Sacrifices were in old times accompanied by feasts in which the reconciled God and His worshippers ate together. In the feast of Passover the lamb which had been used as a sacrifice was consumed as food to strengthen the Israelites for their exodus. This idea Paul here adapts to his present purpose. “Christ, our passover is sacrificed for us,” he says, “let us therefore keep the feast.” The whole life of the Christian is a festal celebration; his strength is maintained by that which has given him peace with God. By Christs death God reconciles us to Himself; out of Christ we continually receive what fits us to serve God as His free people. Every Christian should aim at making his life a celebration of the true deliverance Christ has accomplished for us. We should see that our life is a true exodus, and being so it will bear marks of triumph and of freedom. To feed upon Christ, joyfully to assimilate all that is in Him to our own character, it is this which makes life festal, which turns faintness into abounding strength, and brings zest and appetite into monotonous labour.

But Pauls purpose in introducing the idea of the Passover is rather to enforce his injunction to the Corinthians to purge their communion of all defilement. “Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness!” Leaven was judged unclean, because fermentation is one form of corruption. This impurity was not to be touched by the holy people during their festival week. This was secured at the first keeping of the Passover by the suddenness of the exodus when the people fled with their kneading boards on their shoulders and had no time to take leaven, and had therefore no choice but to keep Gods command and eat unleavened bread. And so scrupulously did the people at all times observe this that before the day of the feast they used to sweep their houses and search the dark corners with candles, lest a morsel of leaven should be found among them. Thus would Paul have all Christians be separate from the rotting, fermenting results of the old life. So suddenly would he have us issue from it and so clean would he have us leave it all behind us. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump; therefore must we be careful, if we would keep this precept and be clean, to search into even unlikely corners in our hearts and lives, and as with the candle of the Lord make diligent search for the tainting remnant.

It is the purpose to keep the feast faithfully, and live as those who are delivered from bondage, which reveals in our consciousness how much we have to put away, and how much of the old life is following on into the new. Habits, feelings, likings and dislikings, all go with us. The unleavened bread of holiness and of a life bound to and ruled by the earnest and godly life of Christ, seems flat and insipid, and we crave something more stimulating to the appetite. The old intolerance of regular, intelligent, continuous prayer, the old willingness to find a rest in this world, must be purged out as leaven which will alter the whole character of our life. Are our holy days holidays, or do we endure holiness of thought and feeling mainly on the consideration that holiness is but for a season? Patiently and believingly resist the stirrings of the old nature. Measure all that rises in you and all that quickens your blood and stirs your appetite by the death and spirit of Christ. Sever yourself determinedly from all that alienates you from Him. The old life and the new should not run parallel with one another so that you can pass from the one to the other. They are not side by side, but end to end; the one all preceding the other, the one ceasing and terminating where the other begins.

The old leaven is to be put away: “the leaven of malice and wickedness,” the bad heartedness that is not seen to be bad till brought into the light of Christs spirit; the spiteful, vindictive, and selfish feelings that are almost expected in society, these are to be put away; and in their stead “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” is to be introduced. Above all things, Paul would say, let us be sincere. The word “sincere” sets before the mind the natural image from which the moral quality takes its name, the honey free from the smallest particle of wax, pure and pellucid. The word which Paul himself, using his own language, here sets down, conveys a similar idea. It is a word derived froth the custom of judging the purity of liquids or the texture of cloths by holding them between the eye and the sun. What Paul desiderates in the Christian character is a quality which can stand this extreme test, and does not need to be seen only in an artificial light. He wants a pure transparent sincerity; he wants what is to its finest thread genuine; an acceptance of Christ which is real, and which is rich in eternal results.

Are we living a genuine and true life? Are we living up to what we know to be the truth about life? Christ has given us the true estimate of this world and all that is in it, He has measured for us Gods requirements, He has shown us what is the truth about Gods love; -are we living in this truth? Do we not find that in our best intentions there is some mixture of foreign elements, and in our most assured choice of Christ some remaining elements which will lead us back from our choice? Even while we own Christ as our Saviour from sin, we are but half inclined to go out from its bondage. We pray God for deliverance, and when He throws wide open before us the gate that leads away from temptation, we refuse to see it, or hesitate until again it is closed. We know how we may become holy, and yet will not use our knowledge.

Let us, whatever else, be genuine. Let us not trifle with the purpose and requirements of Christ. In our deepest and clearest consciousness we see that Christ does open the way to the true life of man; that it is our part to make room for this self-sacrificing life in our own day and in our own circumstances; that until we do so we can only by courtesy be called Christians. The convictions and beliefs which Christ inspires are convictions and beliefs about what we should be, and what Christ means all human life to be, and until these convictions and beliefs are embodied in our actual living selves, and in our conduct and life, we feel that we are not genuine. Time will bring us no relief from this humiliating position, unless time brings us at length to yield ourselves freely to Christs Spirit, and unless, instead of looking at the kingdom He seeks to establish as a quite impossible Utopia, we set ourselves resolutely and wholly to aid in the annexing to His rule our own little world of business and of all the relations of life. To have convictions is well, but if these convictions are not embodied in our life, then we lose our life, and our house is built on sand.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary