Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
4. in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ] This may be taken (1) with ‘I have judged’ in 1Co 5:3; (2) with when ye are gathered together, or (3) with to deliver such a one unto Satan. Of these (1) and (3) are preferable to (2), which would involve an awkward inversion in the order of the words. It implies either (1) the solemn promulgation of the sentence by St Paul, in the name and with the authority of Christ, or (2) the equally solemn delivery of the offender over to Satan. All assemblies of the Christian Church were gathered together in the Name of Christ
with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ ] This has been taken (1) with when ye are gathered together, and (2) with to deliver such a one unto Satan. The former is preferable. The Corinthian Church, when assembled in the Name of Christ, and acting under the authority of its chief pastor, one of Christ’s Apostles, was armed with a spiritual power from Jesus Christ to pronounce and carry out the awful sentence which follows.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the name … – By the authority; or in the behalf; or acting by his commission or power. 2Co 2:10. See the note at Act 3:6. This does not refer to Paul alone in declaring his opinion, but means that they were to be assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, and that they were to proceed to exercise discipline by his authority. The idea is, that the authority to administer discipline is derived from the Lord Jesus Christ, and is to be exercised in his name, and to promote his honor.
When ye are gathered together – Or, You being assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus. This is to be connected with the previous words, and means:
(1) That they were to be assembled for the purpose of administering discipline; and,
(2) That this was to be done in the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
And my spirit – 1Co 5:3. As if I were with you; that is, with my declared opinion; knowing what I would advise, were I one of you; or, I being virtually present with you by having delivered my opinion. It cannot mean that Pauls soul would be really present with them, but that, knowing his views and feelings, and what he would do, and knowing his love for them, they could act as if he were there. This passage proves that discipline belongs to the church itself; and so deep was Pauls conviction of this, that even he would not administer it, without their concurrence and action. And if Paul would not do it, and in a case too where bodily pains were to be inflicted by miraculous agency, assuredly no other ministers have a right to assume the authority to administer discipline without the action and the concurrence of the church itself.
(The general doctrine of the New Testament is that the government of the church is invested, not in the people or church members at large, but in certain rulers or office-bearers, 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11-12; 1Th 5:12-13; Heb 13:7; 1Ti 5:17. We find these elders or rulers existing in every church to which our attention is directed, while the people are continually exhorted to yield a willing submission to their authority. Now the passage under review must be explained in consistency with the analogy of truth, or the general scope of Scripture on the subject. It is unwise to build our conclusion on an insulated text. But, in reality, the language of the apostle, in this place, when fairly examined, gives no countenance to the idea that the judicial power of the church resides in the people. The case of the incestuous man was judged by the apostle himself previous to the transmission of his letter to the Corinthian church, which was therefore enjoined, not to adjudicate on the matter, but simply to give effect to the decision of Paul. I verily have judged already concerning him who hath done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. If it be still demanded why then were the people to assemble? the answer is obvious. It was necessary that the sentence should be published, where the crime had been committed, that the members of the church might concur in it, and withdraw from the society of the guilty person. The simple fact of the people being assembled is no proof that they were judges.
Yet candor requires us to state that the words in the third verse, ede kekrika (I have already judged) are supposed by some to intimate, not the delivering of an authoritative sentence, but the simple expression of an opinion in regard to what ought to be done. This, however, seems neither consistent with the scope of the passage, nor with just ideas of apostolical authority. The apostles had the care of all the churches, with power to settle matters of faith and order, to determine controversies, and exercise the rod of discipline on all offenders, whether pastors or flock; 1Co 5:3-6; 2Co 10:8; 2Co 13:10.)
With the power … – This phrase is to be connected with the following verse. I have determined what ought to be done. The sentence which I have passed is this. You are to be assembled in the name and authority of Christ. I shall be virtually present. And you are to deliver such a one to Satan, by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, it is to be done by you; and the miraculous power which will be evinced in the case will proceed from the Lord Jesus. The word power dunamis is used commonly in the New Testament to denote some miraculous and extraordinary power; and here evidently means that the Lord Jesus would put forth such a power in the infliction of pain and for the preservation of the purity of his church.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. In the name of our Lord Jesus] Who is the head of the Church; and under whose authority every act is to be performed.
And my spirit] My apostolical authority derived from him; with the power, , with the miraculous energy of the Lord Jesus, which is to inflict the punishment that you pronounce:-
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; either having solemnly called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for his counsel and direction, or blessing your action, that it may be of spiritual advantage to the party concerned; or according to the command of Christ, or by his authority, or for his glory. It may be referred either to what went before, I have judged or determined by the authority of Christ; or to what follows after.
When ye are gathered together, and my spirit; when you are gathered together by the authority, or according to the institution, of Jesus Christ, and my spirit with you, you having my judgment in the case. With the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the power and authority of Christ committed to me, and to you, as a church of Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. In the name of our Lord JesusChristBy His authority and as representing His personand will (2Co 2:10). Join thiswith “to deliver such a one unto Satan” (1Co5:5). The clause, “When ye have been gathered together andmy spirit (wherein I am ‘present,’ though ‘absent in body,’ 1Co5:3), with the power of our Lord Jesus,” stands in aparenthesis between. Paul speaking of himself uses the word “spirit”;of Christ, “power.” Christ’s power was promised to bepresent with HIS Church”gathered together in His name” (Mt18:18-20): and here Paul by inspiration gives a special promiseof his apostolic spirit, which in such cases was guided by the HolySpirit, ratifying their decree passed according to his judgment(“I have judged,” 1Co5:3), as though he were present in person (Joh 20:21-23;2Co 13:3-10). This power ofinfallible judgment was limited to the apostles; for they alone hadthe power of working miracles as their credentials to attest theirinfallibility. Their successors, to establish their claim to thelatter, must produce the former (2Co12:2). Even the apostles in ordinary cases, and where notspecially and consciously inspired, were fallible (Act 8:13;Act 8:23; Gal 2:11-14).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,…. These words contain an account of the several things and circumstances, that should attend the awful act of the apostle, in delivering this man to Satan; it would be done “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”; by his command, power, and authority, and for his glory; in whose name all miraculous actions, as this was one, were performed:
when ye are gathered together; as a church, in a public manner, in one place; not to do this business, for this was purely apostolical; but to be witness of this wonderful operation, to acknowledge the justice of God in it, and that they might fear and take warning by it:
and my spirit; meaning that though he was absent in body, he should be present in spirit; and that the extraordinary gift of the Spirit of God bestowed on him would be visibly exercised upon this man before them all, as if he himself was in the midst of them; and this not by any power of his own, but
with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; to which all such miraculous effects, as this hereafter related, are to be ascribed.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This New Testament phrase always means by the authority, or as authorized by Jesus Christ. Paul was not advising the Corinth Church except as morally instructed and sanctioned by our Lord, 1Co 11:1-2; 1Co 14:37.
2) When ye are gathered together. Disciplinary action toward an erring church member or assembly member is to be taken when the assembly or church is gathered together. It is the church ye that is to take disciplinary action, not the pastor or a committee.
3) And my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. The spirit (attitude) of Paul was reflected in this letter, with (Greek sun) in close association with the (Greek dunamis) dynamic energetic or active power of Jesus Christ. The church of Jesus Christ has the active spirit, vice-gerency power of Jesus Christ in her disciplinary action over members who walk in moral wrong. Mat 18:17-18; Mat 28:18-20. It is the church ye (assembly) that is 1) to make 2) to baptize, and 3) to teach observance of the all things commanded of our Lord; and it is the church ye (assembly) that has Gods power to discipline those who walk disorderly to the hurt of the testimony of the church assembly of their own membership, see?
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. When you are gathered together and my spirit — that is, when ye are gathered together with me, but in spirit, for they could not meet together as to bodily presence. He declares, however, that it would be all one as though he were personally present. It is to be carefully observed, that Paul, though an Apostle, does not himself, as an individual, excommunicate according to his own pleasure, but consults with the Church, that the matter may be transacted by common authority. He, it is true, takes the lead, and shows the way, but, in taking others as his associates, he intimates with sufficient plainness, that this authority does not belong to any one individual. As, however, a multitude never accomplishes anything with moderation or seriousness, if not governed by counsel, there was appointed in the ancient Church a Presbytery, (275) that is, an assembly of elders, who, by the consent of all, had the power of first judging in the case. From them the matter was brought before the people, but it was as a thing already judged of. (276) Whatever the matter may be, it is quite contrary to the appointment of Christ and his Apostles — to the order of the Church, and even to equity itself, that this right should be put into the hands of any one man, of excommunicating at his pleasure any that he may choose. Let us take notice, then, that in excommunicating this limitation be observed — that this part of discipline be exercised by the common counsel of the elders, and with the consent of the people, and that this is a remedy in opposition to tyranny. For nothing is more at variance with the discipline of Christ than tyranny, for which you open a wide door, if you give one man the entire power.
In the name of our Lord For it is not enough that we assemble, if it be not in the name of Christ; for even the wicked assemble together for impious and nefarious conspiracies. Now in order that an assembly may be held in Christ’s name, two things are requisite: first, that we begin by calling upon his name; and secondly, that nothing is attempted but in conformity with his word. Then only do men make an auspicious commencement of anything that they take in hand to do, when they with their heart call upon the Lord that they may be governed by his Spirit, and that their plans may, by his grace, be directed to a happy issue; and farther, when they ask at his mouth, as the Prophet speaks, (Isa 30:2,) that is to say, when, after consulting his oracles, they surrender themselves and all their designs to his will in unreserved obedience. If this is becoming even in the least of our actions, how much less ought it to be omitted in important and serious matters, and least of all, when we have to do with God’s business rather than our own? For example, excommunication is an ordinance of God, and not of men; on any occasion, therefore, on which we are to make use of it, where shall we begin if not with God. (277) In short, when Paul exhorts the Corinthians to assemble in the name of Christ, he does not simply require them to make use of Christ’s name, or to confess him with the mouth, (for the wicked themselves can do that,) but to seek him truly and with the heart, and farther, he intimates by this the seriousness and importance of the action.
He adds, with the power of our Lord, for if the promise is true,
As often as two or three are gathered together in my name, I am in the midst of them, (Mat 18:20,)
it follows, that whatever is done in such an assembly is a work of Christ. Hence we infer, of what importance excommunication, rightly administered, is in the sight of God, inasmuch as it rests upon the power of God. For that saying, too, must be accomplished,
Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. (Mat 18:18.)
As, however, this statement ought to fill despisers (278) with no ordinary alarm, so faithful pastors, as well as the Churches generally, are by this admonished in what a devout spirit (279) they should go to work in a matter of such importance. For it is certain that the power of Christ is not tied to the inclination or opinions of mankind, but is associated with his eternal truth.
(275) “ Qu’on appeloit le Presbytere;” — “What they called a Presbytery.”
(276) “ Puis apres la chose estoit renuoyee au peuple par eux, avec un advertissement touteffois de ce qui leur en sembloit;” — “The matter was afterwards brought by them before the people, with an intimation, however, of their views respecting it.” See Calvin’s Institutes, volume 3, pp. 233-5. — Ed.
(277) “ Le nom de Dieu;” — “The name of God.”
(278) “ Contempteurs de Dieu;” — “Despisers of God.”
(279) “ En quelle crainte et obeissance : — “With what fear and obedience.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4, 5) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . and my spirit.These two verses contain the apostolic sentence on the offender, and may read thus: I have already myself decided, in the name of our Lord Jesus, you being gathered together, and my spirit (as in 1Co. 5:3), in the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one, &c.
The opening words are probably the form used in all public acts of the Church as a body, and the power of our Lord Jesus refers to that continual presence which Christ had promised His Church, and particular power which He had delegated to the Apostles to punish (Mat. 16:19; Mat. 18:18; Mat. 18:20; Mat. 28:20). In this sentence we recognise, not merely a formal excommunication from church-fellowship, but a more severe punishment, which could only be inflicted by apostolic authority and power. Satan was regarded as the origin of all physical evilhence the afflicted woman, in Luk. 13:16, is spoken of as one whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years. St. Pauls own bodily suffering is a messenger of Satan (2Co. 12:7). The blindness of Elymas (Act. 13:8), and the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Act. 5:5), are instances of the infliction of bodily-suffering by the Apostles. The deliverance of an offender unto Satan would therefore mean the expulsion of such a one from the Christian communion, and if that failed the actual infliction of some bodily suffering such as would destroy the flesh (not the body, but the flesh, the source and origin of the evil). Explicit directions for the excommunication by the Church of an offender, are given in 1 Corinthians 7, but there is no direct instruction to inflict the further punishment spoken of here. It is, indeed, probable that the lesser punishment had the desired effect (see Note on 2Co. 2:6), and we subsequently find St. Paul pleading for the loving re-admission of the offender into all the privileges of Christian communion.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. In name Christ This severance of the guilty from the Church is performed, 1.) By the divine authority of Christ; 2.) By the declaratory authority of the apostle; and 3.) By the executive authority of the collective Church, in whom the normal authority permanently resides after the miraculous apostolic authority is withdrawn.
When When ye and my spirit are gathered together.
This power of excommunication was first exercised by the Jewish Church. There was a “cutting off from the people,” as in Exo 30:33; Exo 30:38; Exo 31:14; Lev 17:4; and there was an exclusion of the leprous from the camp, Lev 13:46; Num 12:14. So Christ commands that he who will not hear the Church becomes as a “heathen man and a publican;” that is, his Christian character and brotherhood are no longer to be recognised, and he is no longer of the Church but of the world.
In the primitive and persecuted Church, when men, “lapsed” through fear from Christianity became pagans, anathematized Christ, and sacrificed to idols, their apostasy had an awful aspect to the eyes of the faithful. The communion of the Church became unspeakably valuable, and excommunication from it a terror to the soul. And then, when Christianity became the religion of the State, this prerogative of excommunication became a weighty power in the hands of the hierarchy. The ecclesiastical ban pronounced upon the victim isolated him from society like a leper. It deprived him of all rights in court or in Church; made it criminal to pray with him, feed him, give him drink, or even speak to him. When the pope assumed this power, he could ban kings and absolve their subjects from all obedience to them as sovereigns, and all duty or kindness to them as persons. The most appalling form of excommunication was that of “bell, book, and candle.” By the solemn sound of the tolling bell the bishop and twelve priests, each with a lighted candle, marched in solemn procession, while the people assembled, to the cathedral. The bishop, attended by the twelve, sitting before the grand altar, read in solemn voice from the book to the congregation the most direful curses that language could frame; and when he had finished, the candles were at once dashed down, the bell recommenced to toll, and the people departed, filled with supernatural terror and an awful abhorrence of the victim accursed. According to Protestantism, excommunication being the means of securing the purity of the Church, is simply the severance of the guilty from the sacraments and from all membership of the Church.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 5:4-5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ That ye, being gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1Co 5:5 do deliver such a one to Satan, &c. Some think, that as Satan is considered as the head of all who are not under Christ, as their head, (that is, in the church of Christ) every one who was cut off from the church must of course be delivered over to Satan; but it seems much more reasonable to believe, that this refers to the infliction of some bodily pains or diseases, in which Satan might act as the instrument of divine justice. Comp. 1Ti 1:20. And this was for the destruction of the flesh; probably for the emaciating and enfeebling of the powers of animal nature;”That his body may be afflicted and brought down, and thus through divine grace the man led to true repentance and humiliation, that so his soul may be saved in the last day.” See Doddridge, Locke, and Erasmus.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 5:4 . Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible: either . belongs to . and . to (Beza, Justiniani, Calovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both belong to . (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Rckert), or both belong to (Mosheim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader, comp also Osiander); or . . belongs to , and . . to the participial clause. Against the second and third of these views, there is the fact that the symmetry of the address would be needlessly destroyed by bringing in the authority of Christ twice over in the one division, and not at all in the other; against the first, again, there is this, that . . . [773] , as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2Th 3:6 ; Act 3:6 ; Act 16:18 ), links itself more suitably to the sense with . . [774] than with . . . [775] (to the latter of which Mat 18:20 , ., might seem to offer not exactly a parallel, but still a similar representation). There remains therefore, as worthy of preference, the fourth method of connecting the words (Luther, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Maier, al [776] ; Neander with hesitation). Against this, Hofmann objects that . . [777] ought not to have come in until after the participial clause; but quite under a misapprehension, for it is plainly of set purpose, and with all reason and propriety, that the apostolic sentence bears, so to speak, on its very front the seal of his high and plenary authority .
] after ye are assembled, and my spirit (note the emphatic . ), with the power of Jesus (“qui nostram sententiam sua potentia reddet efficacem,” Erasmus, Paraphr .). The substance of the thought, namely, which this whole statement sets before us with concrete vividness and solemnity, is the following: I have already resolved that ye hold an assembly of the church, in which ye shall consider me as present furnished with the power of Christ, and in this assembly shall declare: “Paul, in the name of Christ, with whose power he is here spiritually in the midst of us, hereby delivers over the incestuous man unto Satan .” , Theodoret.
] denotes in efficient connection therewith , that is to say, the spirit of the apostle is present in the assembly, not in virtue of his own independent power (comp Act 3:12 ), but clothed with the authority of Christ, Winer, p. 366 [E. T. 458]. Thus the power of Christ is not conceived as the third party in the assembly, a view in behalf of which Mat 18:20 ; Mat 28:20 are cited; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others, including Rckert and Maier. [779] For Paul bore this power in himself, being as an apostle its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himself meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but: as being present in immanent union with it as Christ’s apostle at the eventual act of judgment. It was just as the depositary of this power that he could give over the sinner to Satan in the name of the Lord, and be assured that the sentence would take effect. According to Hofmann, by . . . . [780] Paul means only to express this, that he would rely upon the aid of the power of Christ. Comp the classic , deorum ope (Reisig, Enarr. p. lxiv.; Khner, a [782] Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded, after the . . [783] which has gone before it, would be far too weak.
[773] . . . .
[774] . . . .
[775] . . . .
[776] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[777] . . . .
[779] Chrysostom and Theophylact, however, leave the choice open between the two renderings: , , . According to Theodoret, Christ is viewed as the presiding authority . Had the apostle, however, represented Christ to himself as forming the third in their meeting, he would hardly have used so abstract an expression ( ), but would have written at least . Comp. Act 15:28 .
[780] . . . .
[782] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[783] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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,
Ver. 4. With the power of our Lord ] Promised,Mat 18:18-20Mat 18:18-20 . This makes it to be a heavy case to be rightly excommunicated. Indeed it may happen that Jonah shall be cast out of the ship, when Ham shall be reserved in the ark. “Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake said (for a pretence), Let the Lord be glorified; but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed,” Isa 66:5 . When the sentence of excommunication began with, In nomine Domini, In the name of God, to be read against a certain martyr, he cried out, as well he might, You begin in a wrong name. And another of them, together with his five fellow sufferers, did formally excommunicate their persecutors. It grew to a common proverb, by the abuse of this ordinance in those corrupt times, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum. In the name of God all evel matters start.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] We may arrange this sentence in four different ways: (1) . may belong to , and . to , so Beza, Calov., Billroth, Olsh., al.: (2) both . and . may belong to , so Chrys., Theophyl. (altern.), Calvin (quoting for . Mat 18:20 ), Grot., Rckert: (3) both may belong to , so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4) . belongs to , and . to , so Luther, Castal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al. And this, I am persuaded, is the right arrangement. For according to (2) and (3), the balance of the sentence would be destroyed, no adjunct of authority being given to one member of it, and both to the other: and (1) is hardly consistent with the arrangement of the clauses, the parenthetical portion beginning far more naturally with the participle than with ., not to mention that the common formula of the Apostles’ speaking authoritatively, is . or the like: see Act 3:16 ; Act 16:18 ; 2Th 3:6 . The sentence then will stand: ( I have decreed), in the name of our Lord Jesus (when ye have been assembled together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus ), (i.e. ‘I myself, in spirit, endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic power:’ . belongs to ., and is not, as in Chrys., see above merely an element in the assembly) to deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord . What does this sentence import ? Not, mere excommunication , though it is doubtless included . It was a delegation to the Corinthian church of a special power, reserved to the Apostles themselves , of inflicting corporeal death or disease as a punishment for sin. Of this we have notable examples in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted at 1Ti 1:20 . The congregation itself could , but it could not , without the authorized concurrence of the Apostle’s , . . . . .
What the . was to be, does not appear: certainly more than the mere destruction of his pride and lust by repentance, as some (Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose: rather, as Chrys., . Hom. xv. p. 127. Estius’s objection to this, that in 2Co 2:7 . we find no trace of such bodily chastisement, is not to the point, because we have no proof that this was ever inflicted , nor does the Apostle command it, but only describes it as his own determination, held as it were in terrorem over the offender. See note on 1Co 5:13 .
Obs., , the offending element, not . Paul could not say , seeing that the body is to partake of the salvation of the spirit; but not the , see ch. 1Co 15:50 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
In the name, &c. Read, “Having been gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye and my spirit. “A Latin MS. of the seventh century in the British Museum reads “and the sanctifying Spirit Himself”.
the name. Compare Act 2:38.
Lord. App-98.
Jesus. App-98.
Christ. The texts omit.
with. App-104.
power. App-172.
Jesus Christ. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] We may arrange this sentence in four different ways: (1) . may belong to , and . to ,-so Beza, Calov., Billroth, Olsh., al.: (2) both . and . may belong to ,-so Chrys., Theophyl. (altern.), Calvin (quoting for . Mat 18:20), Grot., Rckert: (3) both may belong to ,-so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4) . belongs to , and . to ,-so Luther, Castal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al. And this, I am persuaded, is the right arrangement. For according to (2) and (3), the balance of the sentence would be destroyed, no adjunct of authority being given to one member of it, and both to the other: and (1) is hardly consistent with the arrangement of the clauses, the parenthetical portion beginning far more naturally with the participle than with .,-not to mention that the common formula of the Apostles speaking authoritatively, is . or the like: see Act 3:16; Act 16:18; 2Th 3:6. The sentence then will stand:-(I have decreed),-in the name of our Lord Jesus (when ye have been assembled together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus), (i.e. I myself, in spirit, endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic power: . belongs to ., and is not, as in Chrys.,-see above-merely an element in the assembly) to deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. What does this sentence import? Not, mere excommunication, though it is doubtless included. It was a delegation to the Corinthian church of a special power, reserved to the Apostles themselves, of inflicting corporeal death or disease as a punishment for sin. Of this we have notable examples in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted at 1Ti 1:20. The congregation itself could ,-but it could not , without the authorized concurrence of the Apostles , . . . . .
What the . was to be, does not appear: certainly more than the mere destruction of his pride and lust by repentance, as some (Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose: rather, as Chrys., . Hom. xv. p. 127. Estiuss objection to this, that in 2Co 2:7. we find no trace of such bodily chastisement, is not to the point,-because we have no proof that this was ever inflicted,-nor does the Apostle command it, but only describes it as his own determination, held as it were in terrorem over the offender. See note on 1Co 5:13.
Obs., , the offending element, not . Paul could not say , seeing that the body is to partake of the salvation of the spirit;-but not the , see ch. 1Co 15:50.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 5:4. , in the name) It is construed with, to deliver.- , and my spirit) 1Co 5:3.- , with the power) The spirit and power are almost synonymous. Paul, speaking of himself, uses the word, spirit; of Christ, power, 2Co 13:3; Mat 28:20; Mat 18:20. A Hypotyposis,[39] i.e. so that the power of the Lord may immediately exert itself.
[39] A vivid presenting of a thing in words, as if before ones very eyes. See Append.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 5:4
1Co 5:4
in the name of our Lord Jesus,-Acting for and in the stead of the Lord Jesus. [The phrase includes, on the one hand, the denial that the thing was done by virtue of his own authority; and on the other, the claim of the right to act as the representative of Christ.]
ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,-When they were gathered together, Paul himself present in spirit gave his decision in this letter, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the church acts according to his directions, its action is clothed with the power of Christ. The act of the body in such case is the act of Christ. [A question of much importance is, Does the apostle by the words, ye being gathered together, mean that he waits for their assent to his ruling in this matter? Most assuredly not. The whole tone, not only the passage which is now before us, but of the whole epistle up to this point, is that he would have them look upon him as the apostle-the special messenger of Christ-standing towards them in the place of Christ. There is not the faintest hint of making the pronouncing of the sentence dependent on the vote of the assembly which is to be held, as if the apostles decision could be annulled by the contrary opinion of a majority. For his part everything is decided, and with his apostolic competency he has judged to deliver over the offender. There will be joined to Paul, in the assembly which he convokes, the whole church (Act 15:22), to take part in this act.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the name: Act 3:6, Act 4:7-12, Act 4:30, Act 16:18, Eph 5:20, Col 3:17
when: Mat 16:19, Mat 18:16-18, Mat 18:20, Mat 28:18, Mat 28:20, Joh 20:23, 2Co 2:9, 2Co 2:10, 2Co 13:3, 2Co 13:10
Reciprocal: Lev 13:3 – pronounce Jos 22:15 – General Pro 5:11 – when Mat 18:17 – tell Mat 18:18 – General Joh 9:34 – cast him out Act 14:27 – and had 2Co 2:6 – which 2Co 13:8 – General Col 2:5 – be 2Th 3:6 – in the 1Ti 1:20 – I have Tit 3:10 – reject Heb 10:25 – forsaking 2Pe 1:16 – the power Rev 12:10 – the power
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 5:4. The sentence which Paul is going to pronounce will be in the name of Christ, which means by his authority. The first specification is that the action is to be done when ye are gathered together. This teaches that no final act of discipline can be scripturally done except at a meeting of the church. It does not even authorize that a “special meeting” be called for the purpose. The rulers of a congregation may designate the particular meeting at which it will be done, according to their judgment in the case. But when the appointment is made, it must be set at one of the times “when ye are gathered together.” Paul informs them that his spirit will be with them in this great and solemn action, which will be true of all congregational actions that are according to apostolic teaching. Moreover, this action would be backed up by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that it cannot be considered as an act of personal revenge on the part of the brethren.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Deliver the Sinner to Satan
The apostle directed that the whole congregation should act on the basis of Christ’s authority. When the church acts on the basis of Christ’s word, as delivered by inspiration, the action is taken by his authority ( 1Co 5:4 ; Mat 18:15-20 ).
McGarvey writes, “The offender, being excluded from the kingdom of God, is to be thrust back into the kingdom of Satan, that the sense of his loneliness, shame and lost condition may cause him to repent, and mortify or subdue his flesh, i.e, his lust, after which his spirit, being thus delivered, might be saved.” Lipscomb says, “When one has been excluded from the fellowship of the church, Christians should make him feel that he forfeits the esteem and association of all the members of the church, yet he should be warned and admonished as a brother” ( 1Co 5:5 ; 2Th 3:15 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Vv. 4, 5. Ye and my spirit being gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 5. to deliver with the power of our Lord Jesus such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
The tribunal is formed of the Christians of Corinth assembled in Paul’s spiritual presence; his competency is the name of Jesus Christ, under whose authority the sentence is given; his ability to execute is the power of Jesus Christ.
There are four ways of connecting the two subordinate clauses, in the name of…and with the power of, with the two verbs, being gathered together and delivering. The first two make the two clauses bear on the same verb, either on being gathered together (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Rckert, Holsten), or on delivering (Mosheim, etc.). According to the last two, they are distributed between the two verbs; some ascribing the first clause, in the name of, to the last verb deliver, and the second clause, with the power of, to the first verb, being gathered together (Luther, Bengel, de Wette, Meyer, Kling, Edwards); the others making each clause bear on the verb which immediately follows it: in the name of on being gathered together, and with the power of on delivering (Beza, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann, Heinrici). I have no hesitation in preferring this last construction. Independently of the position of the words, which suits this meaning better than it does any of the others, the decisive reason seems to me to be the conformity of the notion of each clause with that of the verb it qualifies. Is it a judicial assembly which is in question, the important thing is its competency; and this is what is indicated by the …, in the name of…, as qualifying being gathered together. Is it, on the contrary, the execution of the sentence which is in question, what is important is force, power de facto; and this is exactly what is expressed by the , with the power of…, as qualifying to deliver. This construction seems to me also to be confirmed by the striking parallel Mat 18:18-20, a saying which must have been present to Paul’s mind in this case: Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven….Again I say unto you, that whatever two or three of you shall agree to ask on the earth, it shall be done for them of My Father. For where two or three are gathered together in My name ( ), there am I in the midst of them. This promise certainly served as a ground for the actual conduct of the apostle. The moment has come for the Church to do what Jesus called binding; it has to judge. This judgment is to be pronounced by the faithful gathered together in His name, as many of them as will be found to agree in view of an interest of this kind, should there be only two or three.
The name denotes the person of the Lord in so far as it is revealed to the hearts of believers, recognised and adored by them.
Perhaps we should, with the documents, reject the word Christ, and preserve only the name Jesus, which calls up the historical personality of Him who has promised to be invisibly present at such an act. It is on this promised presence that the authority of the assembly which does it rests. The pronoun ye does not necessarily embrace the whole of the Church, for the matter in question here is not a vote by a majority of voices; it is a spiritual act in which, from the very nature of things, only the man takes part who feels impelled to it, and each in the measure in which he is capable of it. Two or three suffice for this, in case of need, Jesus Himself says; for the means of action in such discipline is agreement in prayer. How could all this apply to a decree of excommunication, pronounced after contradictory debating, and by a majority of voices, perhaps a majority of one? The things of God do not admit of being thus treated.
The most mysterious expression in this so mysterious passage is the following: , and my spirit. At this assembly, which is to take place at Corinth, Paul will be present by his spirit (1Co 5:3). It would seem that what Paul here affirms of himself ought to be applied to Jesus. But it must not be forgotten that if Jesus is the Head of the Church in general, Paul is the founder and father of the Church of Corinth, and that in virtue of his personal union to Jesus, the spiritual presence of the Lord (Mat 18:20) may become also that of His servant. In chapter xii. of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul does not himself know whether it was with or without his body that he was present at a scene in paradise.
The words , with power, cannot be connected with the participle , being gathered together, whether we make Christ’s power a sort of third member of the assembly, or whether we regard this power of Christ as sharing in the judgment in so far as it must carry it into execution. The first meaning needs no refutation; the second is an over-refinement. This regimen, on the contrary, is quite naturally connected with : to deliver with the power of Christ Himself. There is nothing here opposed, as Edwards thinks, to the natural meaning of . Certainly this preposition does not denote the means by which (, ); but it can perfectly denote a co-operating circumstance, as in the phrases or , to do with the help of God; comp. Heinrici, ad h. l. Human action does not become efficacious except in union with Divine power.
The repetition of the words, of our Lord Jesus (or Jesus Christ), at the end of the verse, belongs to the forms of language used by the ancients in their formulas of condemnation or consecration (devotio). The object of deliver is briefly repeated by the , such an one, a form which brings out once more the odious character of his conduct.
The obscure expression , to deliver to Satan, is found only elsewhere in 1Ti 1:20 : Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
It has been understood in three ways. Some have found in it the idea of excommunication pure and simple (Calvin, Beza, Olshausen, Bonnet, Heinrici, etc.). Calvin thus briefly justifies this sense As Christ reigns in the Church, so Satan outside the Church…He then, who is cast out of the Church, is thereby in a manner delivered to the power of Satan, in so far as he becomes a stranger to the kingdom of God. But the insufficiency of this sense has been generally felt. Why use an expression so extraordinary to designate a fact so simple as that of exclusion from the Church, especially if, as those commentators hold, Paul had just designated the same act by a wholly different term (1Co 5:3)? Still, if the use of the term had a precedent in the forms of the synagogue! But Lightfoot has proved that this formula was never in use to denote Jewish excommunication. We have besides already called attention to the fact that the , the power, of the Lord was not necessary to the execution of a sentence of excommunication. And how could this punishment have prevented Hymenaeus and Alexander from blaspheming? Is it not possible to blaspheme, and that more freely, outside than within the Church? Finally, it remains to explain the following words: for the destruction of the flesh; we do not think it is possible on this explanation to give them a natural meaning.
Moreover, from the earliest times of exegesis down to our own day, the need has been felt of adding another idea to that of excommunication, viz. bodily punishment, regarded either as the proper consequence of excommunication (Calov), or as a chastisement over and above, added to excommunication by the Apostle Paul. To the Church it belongs to exclude from its membership; to the apostle to let loose on the excommunicated one the disciplinary power of Satan to punish him in his body (so nearly Chrysostom, Theodoret, Rckert, Olshausen, Osiander, Meyer). This sense certainly is an approach to the truth; but why seek to combine the idea of excommunication with that of bodily punishment? The former is taken from 1Co 5:3, from the ; we have seen that it is not really there. But what is graver still is, that it would follow from this explanation that the second chastisement, bodily punishment, would be inflicted on the incestuous person in consequence of the Church’s neglecting to inflict on him the first. In fact, it follows from 1Co 5:3 that the apostle’s intervention in this matter was rendered necessary by the lax toleration of the Christians of Corinth. In these circumstances the apostle could no doubt inflict the penalty which the Church should have pronounced, but he could not decree an aggravation of punishment; for the fault of the Church added nothing to that of the culprit. In this respect the first explanation would still be preferable to this second. The latter nevertheless contains an element of truth which we should preserve, and which will constitute the third (Lightfoot, Hofmann, Holsten): the idea of a bodily chastisement, of which Satan is to be the instrument. Such is the punishment which Paul inflicts at his own hand, and in virtue of his apostolic power, and which corresponds to the , taking away from among, to the cutting off which the Church had not sought to obtain from God. Satan is often represented as having the power to inflict physical evils. It is he who is God’s instrument to try Job when he was stricken with leprosy. It is he, says Jesus, who for eighteen years holds bound the poor woman who was bent double, and whom He cured on the Sabbath day (Luk 13:6). Paul himself ascribes to a messenger of Satan the thorn in the flesh, of which God makes use to keep him in humility (2Co 12:7). It is Satan who is the murderer of man in consequence of the first sin (Joh 8:44), and he has the dominion of death (Heb 2:14). It is not hard to understand how a painful, perhaps mortal, punishment of this kind might bring the blasphemy on the lips of a heretic to an end. It is obvious how it might bring back to himself and to God a man who was led away by the seduction of the senses. Suffering in the flesh is needed to check the dominion of fleshly inclinations. The only difference between this chastisement decreed by the apostle, and that which the Corinthians should have asked from above, is, that the Church would have referred the mode of execution to God, while Paul, in virtue of his spiritual position superior to that of the Church, feels at liberty to determine the means of which the Lord will make use. For he knows the mind of the Lord (1Co 2:16). It will perhaps be asked how Satan can lend himself to an office contrary to the interests of his own kingdom. But we know not the mysteries of that being, in which the greatest possible amount of blindness is united to the most penetrating intelligence. Malignity, says M. de Bonald, sharpens the mind and kills sound sense. Was it not the messenger of Satan whom God used to preserve Paul from pride, and who kept him in that consciousness of his weakness by means of which the Divine power could always anew manifest itself in him?
The apostle adds: , for the destruction of the flesh. Those who apply the foregoing expression to excommunication are embarrassed by these words. Calvin takes them as a softening introduced into the punishment, a carnal condemnation importing simply a temporal and temporary condemnation, in opposition to eternal damnation. This interpretation of the genitive is its own refutation. Others think of the ruin of the worldly affairs of the excommunicated person, in consequence of his rupture with his former customers, the other members of the Church. How is it possible to ascribe such a thought to the apostle! The only tenable explanation is that which is found already in Augustine, then in Grotius, Gerlach, Bonnet: the destruction of the flesh, in the moral sense of the word, that is to say, of the sinful tendencies, in consequence of the pain and repentance which will be produced in the man by his expulsion from the Church. But,1. Might not this measure quite as well produce the opposite effect? Thrown back into the world, the man might easily become utterly corrupt. 2. The term , destruction, perdition, would here require to denote a beneficent work of the Holy Spirit; that is impossible; see the threatening sense in which the word is always taken in the other passages of the New Testament: 1Th 5:3 and 2Th 1:9 ( , , destruction sudden, eternal); 1Ti 6:9 ( , destruction and perdition). Paul means here to speak of a real loss for the man, according to the uniform meaning of the word . The matter in question is the destruction of one of the elements of his being with a view to the salvation of the other, which is the more precious. When Paul wishes to express the moral idea of the destruction of sin, he uses quite other terms: to reduce to impotence, (Rom 6:6); to cause to die, kill, , (Col 3:3; Rom 8:13); to crucify, (Gal 5:24); terms which have a different shade from . 3. The opposite of , the flesh, in the following words, is , the spirit. Now this second term cannot simply denote spiritual life, to which the expression being saved would not apply; it can only denote the substratum of that life, the spirit itself, as an element of human existence. Hence it follows that neither does the flesh denote fleshly life, but the flesh itself, the substratum of the natural life.
The flesh must therefore be taken in the sense of the earthly man, or, as Hofmann observes, of the outward man, in Paul’s phrase (2Co 4:16 : If our outward man perish…). It is in this sense that the word flesh itself is taken a few verses before (1Co 5:11), in the saying: That the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh; so Php 1:22 ( ) and Gal 2:20 ( ). The apostle might have two reasons for using the term flesh here rather than body; in the first place, expresses the natural life in its totality, physical and psychical; and next, the body in itself is not to be destroyed (chap. 15). It is therefore the destruction of the earthly existence of the man which Paul meant to designate by the words ; and M. Renan is not wrong in saying: There can be no doubt of it; it is a condemnation to death that Paul pronounces. The sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira offers an analogy to the present case, not that Paul is thinking of so sudden a visitation; the expression he uses rather indicates a slow wasting, leaving to the sinner time for repentance.
This destruction of the flesh has in view the saving of the spirit, in the day of Christ. Some versions translate: that the soul may be saved…, as if the soul and spirit were in Paul’s eyes one and the same thing. The passage 1Th 5:23 proves the contrary. The soul is, in man as in the lower animals, the breath of life which animates his organism; but the spirit is the sense with which the human soul is exclusively endowed to experience the contact of the Divine and apprehend it. This higher sense in the soul once destroyed by the power of the flesh, connection is no longer possible between the soul and God. This is undoubtedly what Scripture calls the second death. As the first is the body’s privation of the soul, the second is the soul’s privation of the spirit. This is why the apostle wishes at any cost to save the spirit in this man, in which there resides the faculty of contact with God and of life in Him throughout eternity. It need not be said that the spirit, thus understood as an element of human life, can only discharge its part fully when it is open to the working of the Divine Spirit.
The words, in the day of the Lord Jesus, transport us to the time when Jesus glorified will appear again on the earth to take to Him His own (1Co 15:23); then will be pronounced on each Christian the sentence of his acceptance or rejection. These last words appear to me to confirm the explanation given of the phrase, destruction of the flesh. For if this denoted the destruction of the fleshly inclinations in the incestuous person, the awaking of spiritual life which would follow would not take place only at Christ’s coming, it would make itself felt in him in this present life.
Rckert has very severely judged the apostle’s conduct on this occasion. He is disposed, indeed, to make good as an excuse in his favour the impetuosity of his zeal, the purity of his intention, and a remnant of Judaic prejudice. But he charges him with having given way to his natural violence; with having compromised the salvation of the guilty person by depriving him, perhaps, if his sentence came to be realized, of time for repentance; and finally, with having acted imprudently towards a Church in which his credit was shaken, by putting it in circumstances to disobey him. We do not accept either these excuses or these charges for the apostle. The phrase deliver to Satan, being foreign to the formulas of the synagogue, was consequently, also, foreign to the apostle’s Jewish past. The alleged violence of his temperament does not betray itself in the slightest in the severity of his conduct. The apostle here rather resembles a mother crying to God for her prodigal son and saying to Him: My God, strike him, strike him even to the death, if need be, if only he be saved! As to the Church, Paul no doubt knew better than the critic of our day how far he could and ought to go in his conduct toward it.
Another critic, Baur, has taken up and developed the observations of Rckert, confirming them by the Second Epistle. In the passage 2Co 2:5-11, he sees the proof that the apostle’s injunctions had not been executed, that the sentence pronounced by him against the incestuous person had not been followed with any effect, and that the apostolical power which he claimed was consequently nothing but an illusion; that after all, in short, nothing remained to the apostle but piteously to beat a retreat, presenting as his desire what was done without his will, and putting on the appearance of pardoning and asking favour for the guilty one from the Corinthians, who pardoned the delinquent in spite of him.
This entire deduction assumes one thing: to wit, that the passage 2Co 2:5-11 refers to the affair of the incestuous person. But the close relation between this passage and that of 1Co 7:12 demonstrates that it is nothing of the kind, and that all that Paul writes in chap. 2 refers to an entirely different fact, to a personal insult to which he had been subjected at Corinth, and which had taken place posterior to the sending of the first letter. And supposing even that the passage of chap. 2 related to the incestuous person, what would it tell us? That the majority of the Church ( , the larger number) had entered into the apostle’s views as to the punishment of the culprit; and that the latter had fallen into such a disheartened state that his danger now was of allowing himself to be driven by Satan from carnal security to despair. If such was the meaning of the passage, what would it contain that was fitted to justify the conclusions of Baur, and the awkward light in which they would place the conduct and character of the apostle?
The apostle has terminated what concerns the particular case of the incestuous person. From this point onwards the subject broadens; he shows in the general state of the Church the reason why it has so badly fulfilled its obligations in this particular case (1Co 5:6-8).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
4. In the name of the Lord Jesus your and my spirit being assembled with the power of the Lord Jesus.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 4
And my spirit; I being with you in spirit, exercising the power with which Christ has invested me.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
5:4 In the {b} name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, {4} with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(b) Calling upon Christ’s name.
(4) There is no doubt that the judgment is ratified in heaven, in which Christ himself sits as Judge.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The apostle wanted the believers to view his ruling as the will of the Lord. He assured them that God would back it up with His power as they enforced the discipline. The phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus" probably modifies "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1Co 5:5). [Note: See Fee, The First . . ., pp. 206-8, for supporting arguments.] In passing the following judgment Paul was acting in Jesus’ name, with His authority.
"The church’s refusal to act against the offender in 1Co 5:2 provides the most striking example of their arrogance and doubt that Paul would execute discipline (1Co 4:18). Here, therefore, he does execute discipline (1Co 5:5). They may doubt his ’power’ (1Co 4:19-21), but he acts by Jesus’ power (1Co 5:4)." [Note: Keener, p. 48.]