Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat.
11. I have written ] Literally, I wrote, i.e. in the former Epistle.
called a brother ] i.e. as being so in name only.
an extortioner ] Latin rapax, a kindred word to that used in the original. Distinct from the covetous man in that he uses force rather than fraud to deprive men of their property.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But now. In this Epistle. This shows that he had written a former letter.
I have written to you. – Above. I have designed to give this injunction that you are to be entirely separated from one who is a professor of religion and who is guilty of these things.
Not to keep company – To be wholly separated and withdrawn from such a person. Not to associate with him in any manner.
If any man that is called a brother – Any professing Christian; any member of the church.
Be a fornicator … – Like him who is mentioned, 1Co 5:1.
Or an idolater – This must mean those persons who, while they professed Christianity, still attended the idol feasts, and worshipped there. Perhaps a few such may have been found who had adopted the Christian profession hypocritically.
Or a railer – A reproachful man; a man of coarse, harsh, and bitter words; a man whose characteristic it was to abuse others; to vilify their character, and wound their feelings. It is needless to say how much this is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and to the example of the Master, who when he was reviled, reviled not again.
Or a drunkard – Perhaps there might have been some then in the church, as there are now, who were addicted to this vice. It has been the source of incalculable evils to the church; and the apostle, therefore, solemnly enjoins on Christians to have no fellowship with a man who is intemperate.
With such an one no not to eat – To have no contact or fellowship with him of any kind; not to do anything that would seem to acknowledge him as a brother; with such an one not even to eat at the same table. A similar course is enjoined by John; 2Jo 1:10-11. This refers to the contact of common life, and not particularly to the communion. The true Christian was wholly to disown such a person, and not to do anything that would seem to imply that he regarded him as a Christian brother. It will be seen here that the rule was much more strict in regard to one who professed to be a Christian than to those who were known and acknowledged pagans. The reasons may have been:
(1) The necessity of keeping the church pure, and of not doing anything that would seem to imply that Christians were the patrons and friends of the intemperate and the wicked.
(2) In respect to the pagan, there could be no danger of its being supposed that Christians regarded them as brethren, or showed to them any more than the ordinary civilities of life; but in regard to those who professed to be Christians, but who were drunkards, or licentious, if a man was on terms of intimacy with them, it would seem as if he acknowledged them as brethren and recognized them as Christians.
(3) This entire separation and withdrawing from all communion was necessary in these times to save the church from scandal, and from the injurious reports which were circulated. The pagan accused Christians of all manner of crime and abominations. These reports were greatly injurious to the church. But it was evident that currency and plausibility would be given to them if it was known that Christians were on terms of intimacy and good fellowship with pagans and intemperate persons. Hence, it became necessary to withdraw wholly from them to withhold even the ordinary courtesies of life; and to draw a line of total and entire separation. Whether this rule in its utmost strictness is demanded now, since the nature of Christianity is known, and since religion cannot be in so much danger from such reports, may be made a question. I am inclined to the opinion that the ordinary civilities of life may be shown to such persons; though certainly nothing that would seem to recognize them as Christians. But as neighbors and relatives; as those who may be in distress and want, we are assuredly not forbidden to show toward them the offices of kindness and compassion. Whitby and some others, however, understand this of the communion of the Lords Supper and of that only.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. But now I have written] I not only write this, but I add more: if any one who is called a brother, i.e. professes the Christian religion, be a fornicator, covetous, idolater, railer, drunkard, or extortioner, not even to eat with such-have no communion with such a one, in things either sacred or civil. You may transact your worldly concerns with a person that knows not God, and makes no profession of Christianity, whatever his moral character may be; but ye must not even thus far acknowledge a man professing Christianity, who is scandalous in his conduct. Let him have this extra mark of your abhorrence of all sin; and let the world see that the Church of God does not tolerate iniquity.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Of late there have been some disputes what eating is here intended, whether at the Lords table, or at our common tables. Intimacy of communion is that which undoubtedly is here signified by eating; and the apostles meaning is, that the members of this church should forbear any unnecessary fellowship and communion with any persons that went under the name of Christians, and yet indulged themselves in any notorious and scandalous courses of life; of which he reckoneth up several sorts.
1. Unclean persons, noted for any kind of uncleanness.
2. Covetous persons; by which he understands all such as, out of their too great love of money, either scandalously sought to add to their heap, or to detain what was others just due.
3. Idolaters; by which he understands such as out of fear, or to gain favour with the heathen amongst whom they lived, would frequent and perform Divine worship in the idols temple.
4. Railers, such as used their tongues intemperately and scandalously, to the prejudice of others reputation.
5. Drunkards; under which notion he comprehends all such as drank hot liquors intemperately, whether they had such an effect upon them as to deprive them of the use of their reason or not.
6. Extortioners, viz. such as, being in any place, exacted more than was their due of those that were under their power.
But yet by this interpretation the argument is not lost against eating with such at the table of the Lord, which is no more necessary communion with them, than civil eating is; for neither hath God spread that table for any such, neither ought any church to endure any such persons in its communion: nor are any Christians bound for ever to abide in the communion of that church, which shall wilfully neglect the purging out of such old leaven. Admitting this precept prohibitive of a civil intimacy with scandalous persons, though they be called brethren, it holds a fortiori, as a stronger argument against religious communion with such, in ordinances to which, apparently, they have no proximate right.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. But now“Now”does not express time, but “the case being so,“namely, that to avoid fornicators, c., of the world, you wouldhave to leave the world altogether, which would be absurd. So “now”is used in Heb 11:16. Thus weavoid making the apostle now retract a command which he hadbefore given.
I have writtenthat is,my meaning in the letter I wrote was “not to keep company,”&c.
a brothercontrastedwith a “fornicator . . . of the world” (1Co5:10). There is less danger in associating with open worldlingsthan with carnal professors. Here, as in Eph 5:3Eph 5:5, “covetousness”is joined with “fornication”: the common fount of bothbeing “the fierce and ever fiercer longing of the creature,which has turned from God, to fill itself with the inferior objectsof sense” [TRENCH,Greek Synonyms of the New Testament]. Hence “idolatry”is associated with them: and the covetous man is termed an “idolater”(Num 25:1; Num 25:2).The Corinthians did not fall into open idolatry, but ate thingsoffered to idols, so making a compromise with the heathen; just asthey connived at fornication. Thus this verse prepares for theprecepts in 1Co 8:4, c. Comparethe similar case of fornication, combined with a similar idolatrouscompromise, after the pattern of Israel with the Midianites (Re2:14).
no not to eatnot tosit at the same table with such whether at the love-feasts (agap)or in private intercourse, much more at the Lord’s table: at thelast, too often now the guests “are not as children in onefamily, but like a heterogeneous crowd of strangers in an inn”[BENGEL] (compare Gal 2:12;2Jn 1:10; 2Jn 1:11).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But now have I written unto you,…. Which shows, that what he had written before was at another time, and in another epistle; but not that what he was now writing was different from the former, only he explains the persons of whom, and the thing about which he has before written:
not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator; or if any man that is a brother is called, or named a fornicator; or covetous, or an idolater; or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no, not to eat. The apostle’s meaning is, that in his prohibition of keeping company with men of the above character, he would be understood of such persons as were called brethren; who had been received into the church, and had been looked upon, and had professed themselves to be such; and who might be mentioned by name, as notoriously guilty of fornication, covetousness, idolatry, and extortion, mentioned in the former verse; to which are added two other sins any of them might be addicted to, as “railing” either at their fellow brethren and Christians, or others giving reproachful language to them, and fixing invidious characters on them: and “drunkenness”; living in the frequent commission of that sin, and others before spoken of; and that such persons remaining impenitent and incorrigible, still persisting, in such a vicious course of life, after due admonition given them, were not only to be removed from their religious society, from the communion of the church, and be debarred sitting down, and eating with them at the Lord’s table, or at their love feasts, but also were to be denied civil conversation and familiarity with them, and even not suffered to eat common food at the same table with them: which though lawful to be used with the men of the world, yet for some reasons were not advisable to be used with such; partly for vindicating the honour of religion, and preventing the stumbling of the weak; and partly to make such offenders ashamed, and bring them to repentance. The apostle alludes to the behaviour of the Jews, either to persons that were under any pollution, as a woman in the days of her separation, when her husband , “might not eat with her” off of the same plate, nor at the same table, nor on the same cloth; nor might she drink with him, nor mix his cup for him; and the same was observed to persons that had issues on them o: or rather to such as were under , “the sentence of excommunication”, and such an one was obliged to sit the distance of four cubits from others, and who might not eat nor drink with him; nor was he allowed to wash and shave himself, nor a sufficiency of food, nor any to sit with him within the space of four cubits, except those of his house p.
o Maimon. Hilch. Issure Bia, c. 11. sect. 17, 18, 19. & Tumaot Okelim, c. 16. sect. 11. & R. Abraham in ib. p T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. & Piske Tosaph. in ib. art. 67, 68.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But now I write unto you ( ). This is the epistolary aorist referring to this same epistle and not to a previous one as in verse 9. As it is (when you read it) I did write unto you.
If any man that is named a brother be ( ). Condition of the third class, a supposable case.
Or a reviler or a drunkard ( ). occurs in Euripides as an adjective and in later writings. In N.T. only here and 6:10. For the verb see 1Co 4:12. is an old Greek word for women and even men (cf. , of men, 1Ti 3:3). In N.T. only here and 6:10. Cf. Ro 13:13. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 316) gives a list of virtues and vices on counters for Roman games that correspond remarkably with Paul’s list of vices here and in 6:10. Chrysostom noted that people in his day complained of the bad company given by Paul for revilers and drunkards as being men with more “respectable” vices!
With such a one, no, not to eat ( ). Associative instrumental case of after , “not even to eat with such a one.” Social contacts with such “a brother” are forbidden
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Comments
1) But now I have written to you. (Greek nun de) but now as a continuing principle, (egrapsa) I wrote to you, – as a matter of Divine, inspired instruction for moral conduct and deportment of Corinth Church members, this was written.
2) Not to keep company. (me sunanamignusthai) not to be intimately associating with, or keeping church company or fellowship with the following:
3) If any man that is called a brother be. (Greek ean tis adelphos anomazomenos) if anyone being named a brother. (Greek he) is or lives in a state or condition as
a) a Fornicator. (he pornos) is a fornicator, one that commits fornication.
b) or covetous (he pleonektes) or is a covetous person, one who lives a life of covetousness.
c) or a railer (he eidoloiatres) or is a railer, a racket raiser, an haranguing person.
d) or a drunkard. (he methusos) or is a drunkard,- one who drinks to an excess of inebriation.
e) or an extortioner, (he harpaks) or is a rapacious person, one who seizes things by violence.
4) With such an one no not to eat. (Greek to toitouto mede sunesthein) with such an one, or this kind of person, no not to eat with or in fellowship with. The eating refers to observance of the Lords Supper, in church fellowship capacity of worship, when the church came together, 1Co 5:4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11. If he who is called a brother In the Greek there is a participle (300) without a verb. (301) Those that view this as referring to what follows, bring out here a forced meaning, and at variance with Paul’s intention. I confess, indeed, that that is a just sentiment, (302) and worthy of being particularly noticed — that no one can be punished by the decision of the Church, but one whose sin has become matter of notoriety; but these words of Paul cannot be made to bear that meaning. What he means, then, is this: “If any one is reckoned a brother among you, and at the same time leads a wicked life, and such as is unbecoming a Christian, keep aloof from his society.” In short, being called a brother, means here a false profession, which has no corresponding reality. Farther, he does not make a complete enumeration of crimes, but merely mentions five or six by way of example, and then afterwards, under the expression such an one, he sums up the whole; and he does not mention any but what fall under the knowledge of men. For inward impiety, and anything that is secret, does not fall within the judgment of the Church.
It is uncertain, however, what he means by an idolater For how can he be devoted to idolatry who has made a profession of Christ? Some are of opinion that there were among the Corinthians at that time some who received Christ but in half, and in the mean time were involved, nevertheless, in corrupt superstition, as the Israelites of old, and afterwards the Samaritans maintained a kind of worship of God, but at the same time polluted it with wicked superstitions. For my part, I rather understand it of those who, while they held idols in contempt, gave, nevertheless, a pretended homage to the idols, with the view of gratifying the wicked. Paul declares that such persons ought not to be tolerated in the society of Christians; and not without good reason, inasmuch as they made so little account of trampling God’s glory under foot. We must, however, observe the circumstances of the case — that, while they had a Church there, in which they might worship God in purity, and have the lawful use of the sacraments, they came into the Church in such a way as not to renounce the profane fellowship of the wicked. I make this observation, in order that no one may think that we ought to employ equally severe measures against those who, while at this day dispersed under the tyranny of the Pope, pollute themselves with many corrupt rites. These indeed, I maintain, sin generally in this respect, and they ought, I acknowledge, to be sharply dealt with, and diligently urged, (303) that they may learn at length to consecrate themselves wholly to Christ; but I dare not go so far as to reckon them worthy of excommunication, for their case is different. (304)
With such an one not even to take food. In the first place, we must ascertain whether he addresses here the whole Church, or merely individuals. I answer, that this is said, indeed, to individuals, but, at the same time, it is connected with their discipline in common; for the power of excommunicating is not allowed to any individual member, but to the entire body. When, therefore, the Church has excommunicated any one, no believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with him; otherwise the authority of the Church would be brought into contempt, if each individual were at liberty to admit to his table those who have been excluded from the table of the Lord. By partaking of food here, is meant either living together, or familiar association in meals. For if, on going into an inn, I see one who has been excommunicated sitting at table, there is nothing to hinder me from dining with him; for I have not authority to exclude him. What Paul means is, that, in so far as it is in our power, we are to shun the society of those whom the Church has cut off from her communion.
The Roman antichrist, not content with this severity, has burst forth into interdicts, prohibiting any one from helping one that has been excommunicated to food, or fuel, or drink, or any other of the supports of life. (305) Now, that is not strictness of discipline, but tyrannical and barbarous cruelty, that is altogether at variance with Paul’s intention. For he means not that he should be counted as an enemy, but as a brother, (2Th 3:15😉 for in putting this public mark of disgrace upon him, the intention is, that he may be filled with shame, and brought to repentance. And with this dreadful cruelty, if God is pleased to permit, do they rage even against the innocent. (306) Now, granting that there are sometimes those who are not undeserving of this punishment, I affirm, on the other hand, that this kind of interdict (307) is altogether unsuitable to an ecclesiastical court.
(300) “ Au texte Grec il y a de mot a mot, Si aucun frere nomme,” etc.; — “In the Greek text it literally, If any one, called a brother,” etc.
(301) It is so according to the common reading, which is as follows: — ἐάν τις, ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος, ἣ πόρνος, ἣ πλεονέκτης, κ. τ. λ..” If any one, called a brother — either a fornicator, or covetous,” etc.; but, as stated by Bloomfield, “seven MSS., and many versions, and Fathers, the Ed. Princ., and those of Beza, Schmid., and Beng., have ᾖ, (before πόρνος,) which is approved by Wets., and Matth., and edited by Griesb., Knapp., Vat., and Tittm.;” and, in Bloomfield’s opinion, “rightly.” — Ed
(302) “ Qu’ils en tirent;” — “Which they draw from it.”
(303) “ Il les faut redarguer auec seuerite, et les soliciter continuellement par admonitions;” — “They ought to be reproved with severity, and plied perseveringly with admonitions.”
(304) “ Car leur condition n’est pas telle comme estoit celle des Corinthiens;” — “For their condition is not like that of the Corinthians.”
(305) “ Est venu furieusement jusques aux defenses et menaces, Que nul ne fust si hardi de donner a boire ou a manger, ou de feu a celuy qui seroit excommunier, ou de luy aider aucunement des choses necessaires a la vie presente;” — “Has in his fury gone so far as to issue forth prohibitions and threatenings — ‘Let no one be so daring as to give meat, or drink, or fuel, to the man who has been excommunicated, or to help him in any way with the things necessary for the present life.’”
(306) “ Et ces bourreaux encore exercent ceste cruaute extreme, mesme contre les innocens;” — “And these hangmen do, besides, exercise this extreme cruelty even against the innocent.”
(307) “ Telle facon d’excommunier;” — “Such a method of excommunication.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(11) But now I have written unto you . . .i.e., But what I meant was that you were not to associate with a Christian guilty of these things. It may seem strange that the word idolater should be included in this category; for in what sense could a brother be a worshipper of idols? It is probable that the word idolater has involved in it the idea, not merely of worshipping an image, but of the sensuality which accompanied various forms of heathen worship, and of which evidently some of the Corinthian brethren were partakers. (See Eph. 5:5, and Col. 3:5, where idolatry is identified with a vice kindred to lasciviousness.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. But now In this letter written here to define more clearly my former words.
Called a brother Whom your associating with would, constructively, sanction his claim to brotherhood in the Church.
Not to eat In such a way as would seem to admit to the pagans of Corinth a Church association with him. This does not mean merely to refuse sacramental communion with him, but the interchange of table hospitalities; a separateness necessarily more severe in a heathen than a Christian community. The intention is not to punish him, or to make an enemy of him, or to render him miserable; but to secure the Church equally from the infection and the disgrace of his fellowship. Seneca (quoted by Wetstein) says: “It matters not so much what, as with whom, you eat and drink.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But now I write to you not to keep company if any man who is named a brother is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one not to eat.’
However, when those who claim to be Christians behave in the ways described they are to be ostracised by fellow-Christians because they are bringing the name of Christ into disrepute. They are not to be openly acknowledged as brothers in front of the outside world. Nevertheless they are not to be counted as an enemy but admonished as a brother in private, because the purpose of the ostracism is to restore them to repentance (2Th 3:14-15). Christians regularly met, not only for worship, but also for fellowship meals. So those described must be excluded from such meals and thus from the Lord’s Table. Note the sixfold description below and their connection with 1Co 6:9-10 which says that such people will not inherit the Kingly Rule of God. This is why it is so important. Not to exclude them would give a false impression that they were safely under the Kingly Rule of God;
A fornicator. One who indulges in sexual immorality either by adultery or other illicit sex. All sex not based on a permanent relationship is included, whether heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Covetous. Being greedy for gain. Having a fixed desire for something that someone else has (see 1Ti 6:10 with reference to money) in contrast with being satisfied with such as one has (Heb 13:5). Paul elsewhere calls such behaviour idolatry (Eph 5:5; Col 3:5) because it means the person is putting that thing before God. It is not even to be named among them (Eph 5:3).
An idolater. One who by any behaviour compromises with pagan religion. Many activities in Corinth were directly related to idols, and to partake in them would be seen as paying homage to those idols (see 1Co 10:27-28). Even eating something openly declared to have been previously offered to an idol is included, for that would suggest to outsiders that the Christian was seeking to participate in benefits from that idol.
A reviler. An abusive person. Someone who runs down or wrongly criticises others, or who causes dissension by what he says of others.
A drunkard. One who overindulges in alcohol (Luk 21:34) and may thus be a nuisance, an abuser, dangerous to others or may spoil fellowship by raucous behaviour (1Co 11:21-22). Jesus often used the idea to depict the bad servant who was unready for his lord’s coming and failed to fulfil his responsibilities (Mat 24:49; Luk 12:45). Drunkenness is a sign of overindulgence and unworthiness.
An extortioner. A thief, a swindler, a cheat, one who obtains money by false pretences or for unsatisfactory work.
But these are, of course, major examples. The treatment would apply to any open sin which is against the commandments of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 5:11 . ] But thus (see on Rom 3:21 ), in reality as contrasted with the aforesaid misconstruction, I did write to you . Herewith Paul now introduces the true meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above, 1Co 5:9 . Other expositors make refer to time: but at present (Cajetanus, Morus, Pott, Heydenreich). But the whole context is against this; according to it, Paul’s design is simply to define more precisely the purport of that phrase in his former letters: “ .” He has done this only negatively in 1Co 5:10 , but goes on now to do it positively in 1Co 5:11 . Further, were a contrast drawn between the present and the former letter, the present would have been more natural and more distinct than the epistolary aorist (see on Gal 6:11 ); nay, to obviate the misunderstanding, it would have been a thing of necessity, 1Co 4:14 .
.] the most important element in the more definite explanation [838] which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition: being called a brother, i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp , Rev 3:1 . Estius, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins . with what comes after, in the sense of: if a brother is a notorious fornicator , having the name of being such. But means always simply to be called , without any such pregnancy of significance either in a good or bad sense (even in Eph 1:21 ; Eph 5:3 ; Rom 15:20 ). Had Paul wished to express the meaning of: bearing the character and repute of a fornicator , he must have used the phrase (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 428 E; Prot. p. 311 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its moral force.
] as in 1Co 6:10 ; comp on 1Co 4:12 .
] Estius observes well that this applies to the Christian, who “sive ex animo, seu metu, seu placendi voluntate, seu quavis alia ratione inductus, infidelium sacris se admiscet, ut vel idolum colat, opere saltem externo, vel de idolothytis edat.” Comp 1Co 6:9 , 1Co 8:10 , 1Co 10:7 , 1Co 14:1 ; Joh 5:21 ; and Dsterdieck in loc [842] Among the frivolous Corinthians, such reversions to the old habits and fellowship might not be uncommon.
] used by old writers only of the female sex; but of the male also in later Greek, after Menander. See Wetstein; Lobeck, a [843] Phryn. p. 151 f.; Meineke, Menander , p. 27.
There are no traces discernible of a logical order in the series of vices here enumerated beyond this, that the three which are of specifically heathen character are put first, and then three others follow, which destroy the peace of the church -life.
. .] parallel, though by way of climax, to the .; hence not anacoluthic in point of construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the Agapae (Vorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydenreich), which would suit neither the quite general phrase . (comp 1Co 11:20 ) nor the intensifying . It means: with one so constituted (comp 1Co 5:5 ) not even to have fellowship at table (neither to ask him to your table, nor sit with him at his). Comp Luk 15:2 ; Gal 2:12 . This implies of course of itself, that they ought also to have no fellowship at the Agapae with such persons. , , Theodoret. Respecting the distinction between the . and excommunication, see 2Th 3:15 .
[838] This more detailed definition, therefore, cannot have been given expressly in the lost Epistle, but must have been taken for granted as self-evident. Otherwise they could not have so misinterpreted the . as they had actually done. For there is no indication in the text that the misinterpretation was a wilful and malicious one, arising out of . , ver. 8 (Hofmann).
[842] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[843] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
Ver. 11. Not to keep company ] Gr. , not to be mingled with them. The rivers of Peru, after they have run into the main sea, yea, some write twenty or thirty miles, they keep themselves unmixed with the salt water; so that a very great way within the sea men may take up as fresh water as if they were near the land. So at Belgrade in Hungary, where the Danube and Sara (two great rivers) meet, their waters mingle no more than water and oil, &c. We must so converse with the wicked, as that we commingle not by holding any needless society with such, no, not with him that is called a brother, but belies his profession. Yet still must we perform to such, though excommunicated, offices of charity, natural and civil duties, as those of parents toward their children, of children toward their parents, and the like. But come not near such stinking stuff, except ye have the wind of it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11. ] But my meaning was ; ‘but, the case being so, that ye must needs consort with fornicators among the heathen, I wrote to you, not to consort, &c.’
That this is the meaning and not ‘But now I write (the epistolary aorist), &c.,’ seems plain, from the use of twice so close together, and therefore probably in the same reference, from the fact noticed by Meyer, that if a contrast had been intended between and , . must have preceded : and from the usage of , of which Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g. Plut. Protag. p. 347, , , and Lycurg. Leocr. p. 138, , See also Heb 11:16 . Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation, that the Apostle had previously given a command, and now retracted it.
] If one who is called a brother be , &c. cumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, al., join with , and understand it either as = , ‘ be a notorious , &c .,’ or ‘ be named a &c. ’ But . or even , in the bad sense, is hardly admissible, and in either case Paul would have written , the stress on in that case requiring it to precede , as it now precedes .
] One who from any motive makes a compromise with the habits of the heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices: Chrys. well remarks, .
was, in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 (but see Lobeck’s note), , . : and Pollux, vi. 25 (Wetst.), .
Seeing that must imply a more complete separation than , it cannot be applied to the (as Mosheim, al.), but must keep its general meaning, not even to sit at table with such an one . This rule, as that in 2Th 3:14 , regards only their private intercourse with the offending person: nothing is here said of public excommunication, though for some of these crimes it would be implied.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 5:11 . , “But now I have written” in contrast to the . of 1Co 5:9 : “If any one doubted the purport of the former letter, it shall be impossible to mistake my meaning now ”. The logical (not temporal) sense of (or ) is preferred by some interpreters: “But now after this, as things now appear (you must understand that) I wrote,” etc., this thus repeating the former. bears the like emphatic temporal sense in 2Co 8:11 , Eph 2:13 . , “if any one bearing the name of brother ” the point of the amended rule, which P. in writing before had apparently left to the common-sense of his readers, but is compelled to make explicit. So the clearly signifies not to hold fraternal, friendly commerce with vicious men: cf. 1Co 15:33 . Such a one may be “named,” but is not, “a brother”; cf. Rev 3:1 . Among the kinds of sinners proscribed P. now inserts the (see note on 1Co 4:12 ), the “railer,” “reviler” the foul-mouthed abuser of others; and the , “drunkard” a word bearing in earlier Gr [871] a comic sense, tipsy , afterwards seriously used (Lt [872] ): these sins are companions; cf. 1Co 6:10 . : “with him that is such (I bid you) not even to eat”. The inf [873] is pr [874] of usage, practice; cf. Gal 2:12 . “Eating together is a sign of friendliness; business transactions are not. If the ref [875] be restricted to Christian fellowship ( sc. the Agap), the emphatic not even is out of place” (Ed [876] ). To forbid intercourse to this extent implies expulsion from the Church, and more; cf. 2Th 3:14 f. (milder treatment), Mat 18:17 . That it should be possible for an actual “idolater” not merely one who “sits in an idol’s house” (1Co 8:10 ) as a place indifferent, or who still in some sort believes in its power (1Co 8:7 ) to be in the Church is evidence of the laxity of Cor [877] Christianity. That this was really the case, and that some Cor [878] , perhaps of philosophical, semi-pantheistic tendencies, wished to combine the worship of the heathen temple with that of the Christian Church, appears likely from 1Co 10:14-22 ; the same syncretism is found in India now; cf. the case of Naaman, 2Ki 5:17 f.
[871] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[872]
[873] infinitive mood.
[874] present tense.
[875] reference.
[876] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[877] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[878] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
keep company. Same as “company with” (1Co 5:9).
if. App-118.
any man. Greek. tis, as in 1Co 5:1.
called = named, i.e. bears the name of.
railer. Greek. loidoros. Only here and 1Co 6:10. Compare 1Co 4:12.
drunkard. Greek. methusos. Only here and 1Co 6:10.
no not = not even. Greek. mede, as in 1Co 5:8.
eat. = eat with. Greek. sunesthio. See Act 10:41.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
11. ] But my meaning was ;-but, the case being so, that ye must needs consort with fornicators among the heathen, I wrote to you, not to consort, &c.
That this is the meaning and not But now I write (the epistolary aorist), &c., seems plain, from the use of twice so close together, and therefore probably in the same reference,-from the fact noticed by Meyer, that if a contrast had been intended between and , . must have preceded :-and from the usage of , of which Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g. Plut. Protag. p. 347, , ,-and Lycurg. Leocr. p. 138, , See also Heb 11:16. Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation,-that the Apostle had previously given a command, and now retracted it.
] If one who is called a brother be, &c. cumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, al., join with , and understand it either as = , be a notorious , &c., or be named a &c. But . or even , in the bad sense, is hardly admissible,-and in either case Paul would have written , the stress on in that case requiring it to precede , as it now precedes .
] One who from any motive makes a compromise with the habits of the heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices: Chrys. well remarks, .
was, in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 (but see Lobecks note), , . : and Pollux, vi. 25 (Wetst.), .
Seeing that must imply a more complete separation than , it cannot be applied to the (as Mosheim, al.), but must keep its general meaning,-not even to sit at table with such an one. This rule, as that in 2Th 3:14, regards only their private intercourse with the offending person: nothing is here said of public excommunication, though for some of these crimes it would be implied.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 5:11. , a brother) an ordinary appellation.-, who is called) A word in the middle voice [or rather, used in a middle sense, neither a favourable nor unfavourable sense].-, a fornicator) the crimes are here enumerated, on account of which others are to be avoided; then in 1Co 6:9-10, more are added, on account of which every man should fear for himself.[43]- , not so much as to eat) not only not with such a man as a host, but not even with him at the house of a third person. The lowest degree of intercourse, which men have, when mixed up in company with one another, is to eat together. Even among the Jews, , excommunication took away all intercourse in regard to eating together. We must not eat with the man, who shall be unfit to eat along with the saints in the kingdom of God, 1Co 6:10. Let the Church of the present day take heed, in which the guests at the Lords table are not like children in one family, but like a number of strangers of various kinds in a large inn.
[43] , a drunkard) It indicates the man who drinks large quantities of wine, although he does not break out into unbridled revellings.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 5:11
1Co 5:11
but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.-Personal association with those claiming to be Christians guilty of these sins is prohibited. [Christians must tolerate no such sins among themselves; they must exclude from the social circle any one who, bearing the name of Christ, indulges in these vices of the heathen world. The church is to be the light of the world and not the recipient of the worlds darkness.]
The question is sometimes raised as to whether the eating means the Lords Supper or a common meal. The context plainly shows that it means the latter. The association here forbidden with the sinner calling himself a Christian is permitted to men of the world guilty of the same sins. But we are not permitted to eat the Lords Supper with the sinners without. Therefore, this cannot refer to the Lords Supper, but must refer to an ordinary meal. Then, too, to eat a common meal with a man was to acknowledge him as a worthy equal. The Jews would not eat with the publicans and sinners, and strongly condemned Jesus for doing so.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
called: 1Co 6:6, 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:15, 1Co 8:11, Mat 18:17, Act 9:17, Rom 16:17, 2Th 3:6, 2Th 3:14, 2Jo 1:10
fornicator: 1Co 5:1-9, 1Co 5:10, Psa 50:16-21, 2Co 12:20, 2Co 12:21, Gal 5:19-21, 1Th 4:3-8, Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20, Rev 21:8, Rev 22:15
or covetous: Psa 10:3, Mar 7:21-23, Luk 12:15-31, Eph 5:5, Col 3:5, 1Ti 3:3, 1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10, 2Pe 2:14, 2Pe 2:15
or an idolater: 1Co 10:7, 1Co 10:8, 1Co 10:14, 1Co 10:18-22
or a railer: 1Co 6:10, Psa 101:5
or a drunkard: 1Co 11:21, Mat 24:49-51, Luk 12:45, Luk 12:46, Luk 21:34, Rom 13:13, Gal 2:12, Eph 5:18, 1Th 5:7, 1Th 5:8
or an extortioner: Eze 22:12, Mat 23:25, Luk 18:11
with: 1Co 5:13, Mat 18:17, Rom 16:17, 2Th 3:6, 2Th 3:14, 1Ti 6:5, 2Jo 1:10
Reciprocal: Deu 23:10 – General Jos 7:13 – take away 1Ki 13:9 – Eat no bread Pro 14:7 – General Pro 23:21 – the drunkard Jer 16:8 – General Act 11:3 – General Act 15:20 – fornication Gal 5:21 – drunkenness Eph 5:3 – fornication Heb 13:5 – conversation
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 5:11. The preceding verse designated who were not meant by the restrictions, this one will specify who is to be so treated. Now I have written denotes that the apostle is giving his latest instruction on the subject. Man that is called a brother means one who had been a member of the congregation, but on account of the evils named had become unworthy of the term “brother,” and hence one with whom they should not keep company. (See the notes on this phrase at verse 9.) The refusal to associate with this man is to be carried to the extent that they were not even to eat with him. Some teach this means eating the Lord’s Supper, but the apostle has just explained that his instructions do not apply to men of the world; they apply only to those who had been members of the church. This theory mentioned would mean that people of the world were permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the apostle has just explained that his instructions do not apply to men of the world; they apply only to those who had been members of the church. This theory mentioned would mean that people of the world were permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper, which we know is not true.
To eat is from SUNESTHIO which Thayer defines, “to eat with, take food together with,” so the word refers to the physical act of partaking of material food. But such an act itself meant more in old times than it does today; read the following passages. Gen 26:30 Gen 31:46; 1Ki 13:15; Pro 23:6; Mat 24:49; Mar 2:16; Act 11:3; Gal 2:12′ From these we may see that the act of eating with others had a social significance formerly that it does not have today. However, the same principle holds good now, and the restriction not to company with means any act or association that would indicate a social recognition. If a man has been excluded on such charges as are named in the present passage, others are forbidden to be intimate with him, for such an association would encourage him to continue in his sinful life, thinking himself to be as good as those who associate with him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 5:11. but now I write onto youI did it before in a general way, but now I do it more fully,not to keep company, if any man that is named a brotherone in full standing as a member.
be a fornicator . . . with such a one, no, not to eatin friendly meals, or any way implying brotherly recognition.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Christians Must Judge Those Within the Church
It was specifically those Christians in sin that Paul warned the brethren not to keep company with. McGarvey says, “Have no interchange of hospitality which would imply brotherly recognition, lest the church should thereby not only be disgraced, but corrupted1 Corinthians 15:33.” In fact, they were not even to eat, or “take food together” as Thayer says, with brethren living in sin. Christians involved in such sins as those Paul has already listed should have been well aware that those participating in them would not gain entrance into heaven ( Gal 5:19-21 ; Eph 5:5 ).
Paul went on to say that he could only deal with those in the church. Discipline for those outside the church is in God’s hands alone. His immediate concern was with any Christian living in sin and the way tolerating their sin would impact the effectiveness of the church. Of course, he knew those in the world would be judged one day ( Joh 5:28-29 ; 2Co 5:10 ). Paul completed his discussion by commanding the Corinthian brethren to disfellowship the sinful brother ( 1Co 5:11-13 ). Peter practiced withdrawal of fellowship for the wrong reason and had to be withstood to the face by Paul. He refused to eat, or take food together with, the Gentiles when some came from James in Jerusalem ( Gal 2:12 ). Interestingly, it was Peter who had first defended the Christian’s right to eat with Gentiles because the gospel is for all ( Act 11:1-18 ).
One might ask why or how Jesus could receive sinners and eat with them as the Pharisees and scribes said in Luk 15:2 . The answer appears in the series of parables he told. The sinners he ate with needed and were willing to hear the gospel. In contrast, when he sent the twelve out under a limited commission in Mat 10:5-15 , he told them to shake the dust off their feet when they departed from a house or city which would not receive them. The reason for the contrast seems to come from an opportunity to teach the lost in the one case and the appearance of giving tacit approval to the sinful actions of others unwilling to change in the other case.
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Vv. 11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one, no, not to eat.
The words but now can only express a logical contrast. The contrasts Paul’s true thought, which remains, with his thought as it was disfigured by the Corinthians, which is relegated to the past. The emphasis is on the words, who is called a brother; as Paul goes on to say in 1Co 5:12, he has not to exercise discipline on those who do not profess the faith. But when a man, who parades the title of Christian, exhibits this profession side by side with vice, the Church is bound to protest against this lying union, and with this view, so far as depends on it, to break off all relations with such a man. This is the way to tear from him the mask with which he covers himself to the shame of the Church and of Christ Himself.
The six following terms have been grouped, either in threes (Meyer) or in three pairs (Hofmann), with more or less ingenuity. It seems to me that, as in the enumeration Rom 1:29 seq., we have here rather an unstudied accumulation than a classification, strictly so called. It may be said that in such cases disgust excludes order. To the four terms of 1Co 5:10 Paul adds two new ones: , a man who speaks rudely, who calumniates, and , the intemperate man.
We have already shown that the not to company with indicates the rupture of private relations. But should not the last words, with such a man, no, not to eat, be applied to the rupture of the ecclesiastical relation by his exclusion from worship and from the Holy Supper? The word , nay, no more, not even, does not allow this explanation of , to eat with. For this act is thus characterized as a matter of less gravity, and Paul could never so speak of the Holy Supper. Among the ancients, for a man to receive any at his table was much more a sign of intimacy than in our day; and the apostle is unwilling that by the sign of so close a personal relation the idea should be authorized that the vicious man is acknowledged by other Christians as worthy of the name. Meyer, indeed, admits that the phrase, no, not to eat with…, can only refer to the believer’s private table. But by an argument fortiori, he concludes that it applies with still more certainty to the Holy Supper. Theodoret had already argued in the same way: Not to eat, with stronger reason not to hold communion with him. In such a matter it is dangerous to proceed by way of logical deduction. In arguing thus, account is not taken of this difference, that the table prepared in my house is my own, while the Holy Supper is the Lord’s Table. I am therefore responsible for those whom I admit to the former, but not for those who appear at the latter. It appears from 1Co 11:28-29, that the Lord thinks good to leave each one liberty to eat and drink his condemnation at the holy table, and will not prevent him from doing so by external means. The parable of the tares already suggested such a course, the only one in keeping with God’s regard for human liberty. The apostle justifies the distinction which he has just made between believers and unbelievers.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater [Col 3:5], or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. [Have no interchange of hospitality which would imply brotherly recognition, lest the church should thereby not only be disgraced, but corrupted– 1Co 15:33]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
11-13. But now I have written unto you not to associate with him; any one denominated a brother may be a covetous person, or a fornicator, or an idolater, or a scold, or a drunkard or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat Take away the wicked person from you yourselves. Here is a positive commandment for them not to associate or to eat with their old companions who are still living in sin in the dark vices here specified; at the same time commanding them to excommunicate the above mentioned incestuous man, and of course all others indulging in known sins. Suffice it to say neither that man nor any others were expelled on this occasion. Why, such was the effect of this letter, and Timothys preaching, and the ministry of Titus who followed, that, as we see in the second epistle, they all repented in sackcloth and ashes, good and bad down on their faces, for days and weeks mourning and crying to God for His mercy, turning the church into a Bochim of weeping; the incestuous man himself not only radically reforming and making things right as far as possible, but about to kill himself grieving, until Paul actually writes to them to stir up their Divine love in his behalf, and comfort him, lest he may be swallowed up by excessive sorrow (2Co 2:7).
Observe that Paul here tells them they are not to adjudicate the world, but to turn them all over to God and the Judgment Day; meanwhile they are to adjudge the church, expurgating everything which is out of harmony with the Word of God.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 11
No,not to eat. By thus refusing all intercourse with him, they were to show the world that they utterly, disavowed and reprobated his doings. In those times, there Was no other mode by which so distinct and effectual a disavowal could be made.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 5:11. Now I have written etc.: viz. in 1Co 5:1-8, which are practically a repetition of the injunction given in the former letter. For, the blame in 1Co 5:2 implies that they ought to separate themselves from immoral professors.
Not to be mixed up etc.: repeated from 1Co 5:9 reminds us that the principle involved in 1Co 5:2 is but a repetition of the earlier injunction. The word idolaters betrays, as do 1Co 6:9; 1Co 10:7; 1Co 10:14; 1Jn 5:21, a proneness in some early Christians to take part, publicly or privately, through fear or through an inadequate sense of the evil of all idolatry, in the rites of heathenism.
A railer: using violent language against others.
With such a one etc.: teaches plainly that they were to treat a wicked church-member quite differently from a heathen guilty of the same sins. For the church-member was sailing under false colors. Any intercourse with him would be a practical acknowledgment that he was what he professed to be, which it was most important to disown.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Paul now clarified that he had meant that the Corinthian Christians should not associate with such a person if he or she professed to be a believer. The Greek phrase tis adelphos onomazomenos literally means one who bears the name brother. The translation "so-called brother" (NASB) implies that the sinner was only a professing Christian. [Note: F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, p. 210.] However he could have been a genuine Christian. [Note: Robert N. Wilkin, "The So-Called So-Called Brother," Grace Evangelical Society News 6:10 (October 1991):2-3.] Only God and that person knew for sure whether he or she was a genuine Christian. The important point is that this person’s behavior threw into question whether he was a genuine Christian. The Corinthian Christians were to exclude such a person from table fellowship with the other Christians in the church.
In the early history of the church eating together was a large part of the fellowship that the Christians enjoyed with one another (cf. Act 2:46-47; Act 6:1; et al.). To exclude a Christian from this circle of fellowship would have made a much stronger statement to him than it normally does in many parts of the world today.
This exclusion was a strong form of discipline that Paul designed to confront the offender with his or her behavior and encourage him or her to repent. Some modern congregations have adopted the policy of excluding such offenders from participation in the Lord’s Supper. However this form of discipline does not carry much impact when a congregation observes the Lord’s Supper only monthly or quarterly. Modern church leaders need to give careful thought to what form of discipline would have the same impact and effect on such a person in their particular society.
"Church discipline is not a group of ’pious policemen’ out to catch a criminal. Rather, it is a group of brokenhearted brothers and sisters seeking to restore an erring member of the family." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:586.]
Paul’s list of sins here seems to be suggestive rather than comprehensive (cf. 1Co 6:9-10). It includes fornicators, the greedy, idolaters, people who abuse others verbally, drunkards and perhaps others addicted to enslaving substances, and swindlers. [Note: See René A. López, "A Study of Pauline Passages with Vice Lists," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (July-September 2011):301-16.] The failure of many church leaders to discipline professing Christians who practice these things today is a sad commentary on the carnality of the modern church. In some cases it is evidence of unwillingness or inability to exercise tough love.