Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 5:9
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
9 13. Application of the same principle to offenders generally
9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators ] From the particular case, and the reflections it suggested, we now come to general rules of conduct on this subject. The Apostle would not have his converts flee from the world, as so many did in later ages, but remain in it and leaven it. This course must bring them into contact with many ungodly men, whose evil example they must not follow, but whom they cannot altogether avoid, unless they would retire altogether from the active business of life. But if any member of the Church bring dishonour on the Christian name by such sins as those which are named, the Christian is bound to shew his sense of such flagrant inconsistency and hypocrisy, by refusing even to sit down to a meal with him. It is not difficult to follow the spirit of such an exhortation now, though it may be impossible to observe its letter. We cannot help meeting men of depraved morals and irreligious lives in business or in general society; we can, nay we must, refrain from making such persons our associates and intimates.
in an epistle ] The Greek has the Epistle, and as in 2Co 7:8 the same words are used in reference to this Epistle, it has been concluded that mention is here made of a former Epistle which is now lost. Estius calls attention to the fact that in 2Co 10:10 St Paul speaks of his ‘letters’ as though he had written more than one to the Corinthian Church. It is not probable that all St Paul’s letters have come down to us, and therefore we may conclude, with the majority of commentators, that the reference is to an Epistle no longer extant.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
I wrote unto you – I have written egrapsa. This word may either refer to this Epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them, but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word.
In an epistle – en te epistole. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators suppose that this refers to the same Epistle (our 1 Corinthians), and that the apostle means to say that in the former part of this Epistle 1Co 5:2 he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that te here is used for taute, and appeal to the kindred passages in Rom 16:2; Col 4:6; 1Th 5:27; 2Th 3:3-4. Many others – as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, etc. – suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This Epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, namely:
(1) It is the natural and obvious interpretation – one that would strike the great mass of people. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle.
(2) It is the very expression which he uses in 2Co 7:8, where he is referring to this Epistle as one which he had sent to them.
(3) It is not true that Paul had in any former part of this Epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have contact with them.
(4) It is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he labored many years; founded many churches; and had frequent occasion to write to them.
(5) We know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus, the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, etc., are referred to in the Old Testament, and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament.
(6) In 1Co 5:11, he expressly makes a distinction between the Epistle which he was then writing and the former one. But now, that is, in this Epistle, I have written ( egrapsa) to you, etc. an expression which he would not use if 1Co 5:9, referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction.
(7) This opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, The Epistle of which he here speaks, is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful. If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply:
(a) That there is no evidence that these were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines, as inspired or uninspired (see 1 Cor. 7); and the same thing may have occurred in his writings.
(b) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless.
(c) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspiration – and then have been suffered to be lost – as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world.
(d) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even the Saviour himself Joh 21:25, have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed than that numerous discourses of him who spake as never man spake, should be lost to the world?
(e) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved and is in our bands. That any inspired hooks have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost, and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed.
Not to company … – Not to associate with; see Eph 5:11; 2Th 3:14. This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now 1Co 5:11 proceeds to give, relates to a different matter – the proper degree of contact with those who were in the church.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 5:9-13
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators.
Avoid the company of sinners
I. Is this practicable?
1. Not absolutely: we must have intercourse with the world.
2. Yet practically: we need have no fellowship or familiarity with them.
II. Is it necessary?
1. Not indispensably, in reference to the world, whom we may not judge, but must leave to the judgment of God.
2. Yet positively in reference to false professors, who must be exposed and excluded. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The company of sinners to be avoided
When a man is known to suffer from a sadly contagious disease none of his friends will come near the house. There is little need to warn them off, they are all too alarmed to come near. Why is it men are not so much afraid of the contagion of vice? How dare they run risks for themselves and children by allowing evil companions to frequent their house? Sin is as infectious and far more deadly than the small-pox or fever. Flee, then, from every one who might lead you into it. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The Christian law of association with evil
I. Common, everyday associations with evil have to be maintained in–
1. Family.
2. Business.
3. Society. Yet in all these the earnest Christian need never find it difficult to make a firm witness for truth, righteousness, and charity.
II. Special relations with evil we may not make.
1. For our own sake.
2. For our friends sake.
3. For the sake of others who may observe our friendship.
4. For Christs sake, who said through His servant, Come out from among them, &c. (R. Tuck, B. A.)
The limits of fellowship
No man liveth unto himself. Attempts have been made to build a science of human nature and a scheme of human life on individualism, but they have failed. Man is born into, lives in, and is inexplicable apart from society. For good or for evil we are with one another.
I. Christians are not limited to the society of their fellow-Christians. Paul was full of sanctified common sense. He saw clearly that if a man eschewed all intercourse with those who differed from him he would have to go out of the world.
1. The example of Christ and His apostles sanctions intercourse with general society.
2. The assumption of superior sanctity repels, while such intercourse may lead to a desire for the gospel.
3. Opportunities occur in social intercourse for introducing directly or indirectly the truths of religion. A word spoken in season, &c.
II. Christians are restrained people free intercourse with unworthy fellow professors.
1. It must not be supposed that we are confined to the fellowship of those whose character is mature and blameless. This would be to set up in the Church an aristocracy of the worst kind.
2. Those whose company is forbidden are such as by their violation of the moral law prove their insincerity.
3. The reasons for this prohibition are obvious. Intimacy with such would–
(1) Be injurious to our own moral nature.
(2) Be interpreted by the world as a condonation of sin.
(3) Encourage the sinner in his sin. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)
Converse with the ungodly
I. In our ordinary life we must associate more or less with the ungodly. Our legitimate business and our duties as citizens leads us amongst such. If we kept ourselves apart we should have to go out of the world.
1. Christianity is not designed to drive us out of the world. We are to live among men righteously. Here we have an argument against monasticism.
2. Christ mixed freely among men.
3. We have many opportunities for witnessing for Christ in the world. Private Christians may thus become missionaries, and reach classes beyond the ordinary means. Still any association with the ungodly has its perils, and we must not shut our eyes to them. When we go into the world we should go armed, and never without Christ.
II. We are not to associate with a professor who walks disorderly.
1. The case is here altered. Those outside are strangers, though we mix with them; this one we know and have been identified with. Those outside are left to the judgment of God; but we have jurisdiction in the case of our offending brother (1Co 5:4-5). If this were not so–
(1) The force of Church discipline would be seriously weakened.
(2) The effect upon the offender would be lessened. Church discipline does not lose sight of his welfare: it is directed towards his recovery.
(3) It would seem as though the evil were lightly esteemed, which would bring great scandal and contempt on Christianity.
(4) There would be much peril to the other members of the Church–
(a) In the association. There is often more peril in the society of a false professor than in that of an open evildoer.
(b) In the conviction that they could sin with comparative impunity so far as the Church was concerned.
III. What kinds of sin involve separation. The apostle gives a list of transgressors.
1. Fornicators. The unclean: professing purity, practising impurity.
2. The covetous. Those who made a god of the things of sense. Heart idolatry.
3. Idolaters. Those who, being professing Christians, compromised like Naaman, and like those who now pay homage to the god of this world.
4. Railers or revilers. Those who say they have a clean heart, but keep a foul mouth.
5. Drunkards.
6. Extortioners. Greedy souls who overreach others, but overreach themselves pre-eminently. We may not company with such, but we may pray and labour for them. (W. E. Hurndall, M. A.)
The snare of worldly conformity
There is something ominous in the good terms on which Christians are now able to live with their worldly neighbours, when they are not only tolerated in worldly circles, but can make bosom companions of, and even be united in marriage to, those who, knowing nothing of spiritual life, and being habitually and ostentatiously regardless of unseen realities, are still of the world, in the truest and strongest sense of these words. The cause of these amicable relations is not that the world has changed its character essentially; for that it will never do until it ceases to be the world, by being born of God. And must it not be, therefore, that in the Christians who live with it on such intimate terms, there is little or nothing of the spirit of Christ? I would utter no sweeping assertion. But there is in this new bearing of the world to the Church enough to awaken the gravest inquiry in all who are really disciples of Christ, and jealous for the honour of their Lord. Nor is it evident that such inquiry honestly conducted would not lead to the conclusion, that while Christian principles have somewhat influenced the world, the spirit of the world has far more powerfully influenced the Church; and that we have secured the worlds favour, by compromising our Christian character in compliance with the worlds demands. Good John Bunyan, were he now to visit Vanity Fair, would find it very different from what it was when he conducted his pilgrims through it, and described the cruel treatment they received. He would find its hostility to the pilgrims wonderfully abated, but he would also find the spirit of the pilgrims wonderfully changed; and that the truce between the two has been procured, not by the concessions of Vanity Fair only, but by the concessions of the pilgrims as well. He would find that while the inhabitants of Vanity Fair have little objection to going to church as the best place for displaying their vanities, many of the pilgrims have become much less like travellers through the town, than residents in it; that some of them do a very flourishing trade there, and can scarcely be distinguished from other traders except from their occasional use of a religious phraseology, not at all from the principles on which their trade is conducted; that they patronise their places of amusement, scarcely avoiding even the most disreputable, and appear there in the attire common to those who frequent them; that they build their villas and mansions there, and enjoy the good things of the place, and altogether seem more likely to spend their days in Vanity Fair, than to induce the inhabitants of Vanity Fair to accompany them in their journey to the celestial city. And though he might find it difficult to say how far the pilgrims ought or ought not to avail themselves of the altered feeling, and take their share of the good things which the place supplies, I fear he would not think the present an unqualified improvement on the time which he so graphically described. (W. Landels, D. D.)
Danger of worldly intercourse
None can pretend to say how far you may intermix in worldly company, says the Rev. R. Cecil, and get no stain or soil. Situation, circumstances, &c., must all be taken into consideration. But this may be said, that he only mixes with the world with safety who does it not from inclination, but necessity. As to amusements, and what are called recreations, a really awakened Christian will neither find taste nor leisure for them. Religion furnishes the mind with objects sufficient to fill up every vacancy. Yet as you name them I would have you mark carefully everything that disposes or indisposes the mind to holy pursuits. Persons of tender health are very careful to avoid whatever is hurtful, such as damps, infectious rooms, blighting winds. They attend to the injunctions of their physicians, the cautions of their friends, &c. If people were but as careful about their spiritual health as they are of their bodily health, we should see much stronger and taller Christians.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 9. I wrote unto you in an epistle] The wisest and best skilled in Biblical criticism agree that the apostle does not refer to any other epistle than this; and that he speaks here of some general directions which he had given in the foregoing part of it; but which he had now in some measure changed and greatly strengthened, as we see from 1Co 5:11. The words may be translated, I HAD written to you in THIS EPISTLE; for there are many instances in the New Testament where the aorist, which is here used, and which is a sort of indefinite tense, is used for the perfect and the plusquam-perfect. Dr. Whitby produces several proofs of this, and contends that the conclusion drawn by some, viz. that it refers to some epistle that is lost, is not legitimately drawn from any premises which either this text or antiquity affords. The principal evidence against this is 2Co 7:8, where , the same words as above, appear to refer to this first epistle. Possibly the apostle may refer to an epistle which he had written though not sent; for, on receiving farther information from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, relative to the state of the Corinthian Church, he suppressed that, and wrote this, in which he considers the subject much more at large. See Dr. Lightfoot.
Not to company with fornicators] With which, as we have already seen, Corinth abounded. It was not only the grand sin, but staple, of the place.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It should seem that Paul had wrote so in some former epistle which he had directed to this church, which is lost; for we must think that Paul wrote more epistles to the several churches than those left us upon record in holy writ (yet so as not to undermine the perfection of the Holy Scriptures). By
fornicators are meant any sorts of unclean persons known to them; and the keeping company with them, which the apostle had prohibited to the Corinthians, was not a mere fellowship with them in their works of darkness, but any intimacy of communion with any such persons.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. I wrote . . . in anepistlerather, “in the Epistle”: a former one notnow extant. That Paul does not refer to the present letter isproved by the fact that no direction “not to company withfornicators” occurs in the previous part of it; also the words,”in an (or, the) epistle,” could not have been addedif he meant, “I have just written” (2Co10:10). “His letters” (plural; notapplying to merely one) confirm this. 2Co7:8 also refers to our first Epistle, just as here aformer letter is referred to by the same phrase. Paul probablywrote a former brief reply to inquiries of the Corinthians: ourfirst Epistle, as it enters more fully into the same subject, hassuperseded the former, which the Holy Spirit did not design for theguidance of the Church in general, and which therefore has not beenpreserved. See my Introduction.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I wrote unto you in an epistle,….. Not in this same epistle, and in 1Co 5:2 as some think; for what is here observed is not written in either of those verses, but in some other epistle he had sent them before, as is clear from 1Co 5:11 which either came not to hand, or else was neglected by them; and so what he here says may be considered as a reproof to them, for taking no notice of his advice; but continuing to show respect to the incestuous person, though he in a former epistle had advised them to the contrary: no doubt the apostle wrote other epistles to the Corinthians, besides those that are in being; see 2Co 10:10 nor does such a supposition at all detract from the perfection of Scripture; for not all that were written by him were by divine inspiration; and as many as were so, and were necessary for the perfection of the canon of Scripture, and to instruct us in the whole counsel of God, have been preserved; nor is this any contradiction to this epistle’s being his first to this church; for though it might not be his first to them, yet it is the first to them extant with us, and therefore so called: what he had written to them in another epistle was not
to company with fornicators; which he had not so fully explained, neither what fornicators he meant, nor what by keeping company with them; he therefore in this distinguishes upon the former, and enlarges his sense of the latter; declaring that they were not so much as to eat with such persons; which shows, that this prohibition does not regard unclean copulation, or a joining with them in the sin of fornication, they had been used to in a state of unregeneracy, for some sort of companying with fornicators is allowed of in the next verse; whereas no degree of a sinful mixture with them would ever be tolerated: but that it is to be understood of a civil society and familiar conversation with them; which might bring a reproach upon religion, be a stumbling to weak Christians, and be of dangerous consequence to themselves and others; who hereby might be allured and drawn by their example into the commission of the same sinful practices. The apostle seems to allude to the customs and usages of the Jews, who abstained from all civil commerce and familiar acquaintance with unbelievers. They say,
“that everyone that does not study in the law,
” , “it is forbidden to come near him, and to exercise merchandise with him, and much less to walk with him in the way”, because there is no faith in him m.”
m Zohar in Lev. fol. 33. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Advice to Shun Scandalous Professors. | A. D. 57. |
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 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. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Here the apostle advises them to shun the company and converse of scandalous professors. Consider,
I. The advice itself: I wrote to you in a letter not to company with fornicators, v. 9. Some think this was an epistle written to them before, which is lost. Yet we have lost nothing by it, the Christian revelation being entire in those books of scripture which have come down to us, which are all that were intended by God for the general use of Christians, or he could and would in his providence have preserved more of the writings of inspired men. Some think it is to be understood of this very epistle, that he had written this advice before he had full information of their whole case, but thought it needful now to be more particular. And therefore on this occasion he tells them that if any man called a brother, any one professing Christianity, and being a member of a Christian church, were a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, that they should not keep company with him, nor so much as eat with such a one. They were to avoid all familiarity with him; they were to have no commerce with him; they were to have no commerce with him: but, that they might shame him, and bring him to repentance, must disclaim and shun him. Note, Christians are to avoid the familiar conversation of fellow-christians that are notoriously wicked, and under just censure for their flagitious practices. Such disgrace the Christian name. They may call themselves brethren in Christ, but they are not Christian brethren. They are only fit companions for the brethren in iniquity; and to such company they should be left, till they mend their ways and doings.
II. How he limits this advice. He does not forbid the Christians the like commerce with scandalously wicked heathens. He does not forbid their eating nor conversing with the fornicators of this world, c. They know no better. They profess no better. The gods they serve, and the worship they render to many of them, countenance such wickedness. “You must needs go out of the world if you will have no conversation with such men. Your Gentile neighbours are generally vicious and profane and it is impossible, as long as you are in the world, and have any worldly business to do, but you must fall into their company. This cannot be wholly avoided.” Note, Christians may and ought to testify more respect to loose worldlings than to loose Christians. This seems a paradox. Why should we shun the company of a profane or loose Christian, rather than that of a profane or loose heathen?
III. The reason of this limitation is here assigned. It is impossible the one should be avoided. Christians must have gone out of the world to avoid the company of loose heathens. But this was impossible, as long as they had business in the world. While they are minding their duty, and doing their proper business, God can and will preserve them from contagion. Besides, they carry an antidote against the infection of their bad example, and are naturally upon their guard. They are apt to have a horror at their wicked practices. But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked Christians. Our own safety and preservation are a reason of this difference. But, besides, heathens were such as Christians had nothing to do to judge and censure, and avoid upon a censure passed; for they are without (v. 12), and must be left to God’s judgment, v. 13. But, as to members of the church, they are within, are professedly bound by the laws and rules of Christianity, and not only liable to the judgment of God, but to the censures of those who are set over them, and the fellow-members of the same body, when they transgress those rules. Every Christian is bound to judge them unfit for communion and familiar converse. They are to be punished, by having this mark of disgrace put upon them, that they may be shamed, and, if possible, reclaimed thereby: and the more because the sins of such much more dishonour God than the sins of the openly wicked and profane can do. The church therefore is obliged to clear herself from all confederacy with them, or connivance at them, and to bear testimony against their wicked practices. Note, Though the church has nothing to do with those without, it must endeavour to keep clear of the guilt and reproach of those within.
IV. How he applies the argument to the case before him: “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person, v. 13. Cast him out of your fellowship, and avoid his conversation.”
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
I wrote unto you in my epistle ( ). Not the epistolary aorist, but a reference to an epistle to the Corinthians earlier than this one (our First Corinthians), one not preserved to us. What a “find” it would be if a bundle of papyri in Egypt should give it back to us?
To have no company with fornicators ( ). Present middle infinitive with in an indirect command of a late double compound verb used in the papyri to mix up with (—, a verb). It is in the N.T. only here and verse 1Cor 5:11; 2Thess 3:14 which see. It is used here with the associative instrumental case (, from , , to sell, men and women who sell their bodies for lust). It is a pertinent question today how far modern views try to put a veneer over the vice in men and women.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I write – in my epistle. American Rev., as it is I wrote. The reference is probably to a former letter now lost. Some explain egraya I wrote as the epistolary aorist (see on 1Jo 2:13); but the words in my epistle seem to favor the other view.
To company [] : Only here and 2Th 3:14. The translation company is inadequate, but cannot perhaps be bettered. The word is compounded of sun together, ajna up and down among, and, mignumi to mingle. It denotes, therefore, not only close, but habitual, intercourse.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Comments
1) I wrote unto you in an epistle. Paul had formerly, prior to this formal letter of 1 Corinthians, written the brethren and warned them regarding the heathen type of carnality to which they had since fallen victims.
2) Not to company with fornicators. (me sunanamignusthai) not to associate intimately. (pornois) With fornicators. To keep company or intimately associate with people guilty of repeated, known, carnal, fornication was to compromise the very principles of holiness of life to which the people of God are called, Rom 12:1-2; Heb 12:14; Mat 5:48.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
9. I wrote to you in an epistle. The epistle of which he speaks is not at this day extant. Nor is there any doubt that many others are lost. It is enough, however, that those have been preserved to us which the Lord foresaw would suffice. But this passage, in consequence of its obscurity, has been twisted to a variety of interpretations, which I do not think it necessary for me to take up time in setting aside, but will simply bring forward what appears to me to be its true meaning. He reminds the Corinthians of what he had already enjoined upon them — that they should refrain from intercourse with the wicked. For the word rendered to keep company with, means to be on terms of familiarity with any one, and to be in habits of close intimacy with him. (294) Now, his reminding them of this tends to expose their remissness, inasmuch as they had been admonished, and yet had remained inactive.
He adds an exception, that they may the better understand that this refers particularly to those that belong to the Church, as they did not require to be admonished (295) to avoid the society of the world. In short, then, he prohibits the Corinthians from holding intercourse with those who, while professing to be believers, do, nevertheless, live wickedly and to the dishonor of God. “Let all that wish to be reckoned brethren, either live holily and becomingly, or be excommunicated from the society of the pious, and let all the good refrain from intercourse and familiarity with them. It were superfluous to speak as to the openly wicked, for you ought of your own accord to shun them, without any admonition from me.” This exception, however, increases the criminality of remissness, inasmuch as they cherished in the bosom of the Church an openly wicked person; for it is more disgraceful to neglect those of your own household than to neglect strangers.
(294) The original word, συναναμίγνυσθαι, literally means to be mixed up together with It is the rendering of the Septuagint for the Hebrew word יתבולל, in Hos 7:8 Ephraim hath mixed himself among the people. — Ed
(295) “ Ce seroit vne chose superflue de les admonester,” etc.; — “It were a superfluous thing to admonish them,” etc.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Butlers Comments
SECTION 3
Affiliations Sorted (1Co. 5:9-13)
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robbernot even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to ?Jdg. 13:1-25 God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.
1Co. 5:9-10 Associating with Heathen: We learn from 1Co. 5:9 that Paul wrote at least three letters to the Corinthian church. It is clear from his statement, I wrote to you in my letter . . . , that he had written to Corinth prior to the epistle now before us, and, of course, he wrote at least one (Second Corinthians) afterward. In the non-extant letter Paul had exhorted them not to associate with immoral men. The Greek word sunanamignusthai is a compound of three words and literally means, mix up with, and is translated associate with (RSV) and company with (KJV). The same Greek word is used in 2Th. 3:14, and is translated have nothing to do with him. In his previous letter Paul intended his exhortation about dissociation from immoral people to be applied in its strictest sense to any fellow Christian who was continuing, impenitently, in an immoral sexual relationship. That would probably apply specifically, as we shall observe later, to grossly impenitent and perverted sexual sinners in the heathen society as well. It seems, however, that the Corinthians inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) misunderstood Paul. They assumed he meant they were to withdraw completely from any associations with their heathen neighbors. The RSV translation, not at all, of the Greek words ou pantos seems to make Paul mean that Christians should have no reservations at all about mixing or mingling with the immoral around them. Such an idea would make the inspired apostle contradict himself since in 2Co. 6:14-18; 2Co. 7:1 Paul pointedly commands Christians not to share in heathen depravity! The Greek words ou pantos are better translated, not meaning altogether. Thus Paul is saying, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not meaning that you must dissociate yourself altogether (or completely) from the immoral of this world. . . . The apostle categorizes the heathen into those who sin against their bodies (immoral, Gr. pornois, sexual sins), those who sin against society (greedy and robbers), and those who sin against God (idolaters, Gr. eidololatrais, image worshipers).
Since all the citizens of Corinth, except the Christians and Jews, would be idolaters, and many of them would be guilty of sexual sins and/or greedy, it would have been nearly impossible for the Christians to reject all associations with the heathen. They could have made no purchases in the markets, made no appeals for civil justice, visited no neighbors and relatives, and made no evangelistic contacts with the lost. The only way they could have had no associations at all, theoretically, would be to move away from the city of Corinth into the uninhabited mountains and forests and formed monasteries or communes which were completely self-sustaining and self-governing. Total dissociation would have precluded any possibility of the Corinthian Christians carrying out the Great Commission (cf. Mat. 28:18-20). Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever advocated asceticism or monasticism. New Testament Christianity is to be lived out in the midst of a sinful society so it may have a leavening (in the good sense) influence (cf. Mat. 13:33; Luk. 13:20-21). Christians are the salt of the earth and light of the world (Mat. 5:13-16). Christians are to be in the world but not of the world (Joh. 17:15-19). As one writer has put it, Pauls admonition here concerning the immoral of this world did not prohibit contact, but it did prohibit conformity.
But Pauls admonition concerning an impenitent, immoral person who bears the name of brother, is, not even to eat with such a one. This does not refer to the Lords Supper, but to dining together socially. Being a guest for dinner in another persons home was considered in the ancient world to be a sign that the host was intimately associated with the guest and that he agreed with his philosophical stand and his life-style. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus would eat with publicans and sinners (cf. Mat. 9:10-11; Mat. 11:19; Luk. 19:7). It would be dangerous to both the faithful Christian and the impenitent brother for the faithful Christian to socialize with the impenitent (see 2Th. 3:6; 2Th. 3:14; Tit. 3:10-11; 2Pe. 2:1-22; 2Jn. 1:10-11). First, it would give the impenitent brother the impression that he would be acceptable in the Christian fellowship whether he repented or not; second, it would expose the faithful brother to temptations in a seductive atmosphere of geniality and acceptability; third, it would make possible certain unwarranted conclusions from both the Christian community and the pagan society that the Church was not much different than the world in the matter of immorality.
The church is not charged with the responsibility of disciplining (judging) outsiders. Paul expected the Corinthian church to know that. As far as the unchurched sinners of society was concerned, the apostle allows for such contact as was necessary for the ongoing of life in the world. But he permitted no contact (complete withdrawal) at even the social level with a sinning brother.
On the other hand, the church is most specifically charged with the responsibility for disciplining (judging) members of the church. For the church to fail in this duty is to dilute the spiritual quality of the congregation, and thus destroy its purpose as a city set on a hill! This does not mean that all church members must be sinless. It does not mean that every church member who commits an unwitting sin or falls into a temptation, must be excommunicated. The crucial issue is flagrant, shameful, continued sin for which there is no apparent repentance (including a change of mind issuing in a change of conduct). When such impenitence is reported and has been established by due scriptural process, discipline involving driving out (Gr. exareite, expel, take out, removed from) the evil one (Gr. poneron) from the fellowship of the church is demanded. It is the word of the Lord!
Appleburys Comments
Paul Explains the Instruction he has Given (913)
Text
1Co. 5:9-13. I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; 10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: 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. 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.
Commentary
I wrote to you in my epistle.Literally, in the epistle. See the reference to Sosthenes who is called our brother, although it is literally the brother (1Co. 1:1). This often presents a problem in translation, for the article could be used in a number of different ways. In this case, it could refer to the epistle which the Corinthians were reading (our First Corinthians).
The tense of the verb also presents a translation problem. Normally it would indicate action occurring in past time just as our English text says, I wrote. But the Greeks also used this tense with another meaning. For example, Paul could be thinking of his readers in such a manner as to suppose that he was actually with them when they were reading the letter. If this is true, he would be saying, In this letter, I wrote to have no company with fornicators. This, in substance, is what he did write in 1Co. 5:1-9. Note 1Co. 5:2, he that had done this thing might be taken away from you, and Purge out the old leaven (1Co. 5:7). In other words, he could be explaining in greater detail what he had just written. All are agreed that this is the sense in which I wrote is verse eleven is to be taken.
While some of the early commentators take this view about verse nine, most of the later ones think of it as a reference to an epistle which he wrote prior to our First Corinthians. It is, according to this view, the lost epistle of Pauls. While we must concede that this is possible, the fact remains that it is not a proven fact and that it does make sense to take I wrote as suggested above. While all this is interesting and should be taken into consideration, it does not change the import of this passage in the slightest. We still have the inspired instruction about such cases of misconduct in the church and the explanation as given in this section (1Co. 5:9-13).
no company with fornicators.Literally, not mixed up with. Do not mingle or associate with those guilty of immoral conduct such as this one who had his fathers wife.
not at all meaning with fornicators of this world.What the apostle had said on this subject in this epistleor in the so-called lost epistlewas not to be understood as saying that church people were never to associate with people of the world. Of course, they were not to mingle with them in such a manner as to become one like them and lend approval to sinful practice. The Pharisees attempted to discredit Jesus by insinuating that His presence at social functions of His day where tax collectors and sinners were present was lending approval to sinful practice. Jesus answer to this charge was this, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick (Mat. 9:12). Christian people cannot afford to associate with the world and partake of its sinful practices, but they must make contact in such a manner as to help the lost sinner of the world to find the Savior.
for then must ye heeds go out of the world.Paul was afraid that they might misunderstand what he had written on this subject. Was it a former epistle or the one he was just writing? This, of course, was no problem to the Corinthians. If they had received an earlier epistle, this language would be clear to them. If, on the other hand, all he had written was this letter, then it would be equally intelligible to them. But this need not trouble us, for the meaning is the same whether written in some earlier epistle or in the earlier paragraph.
Christian people are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. It is not possible to go out of the world, and if it were, it would be contrary to Gods plan to save the believer to do so. Gods plan calls for the preaching of the word of the cross by the faithful church that men might hear and believe and be saved.
if any man that is named a brother.What Paul wrote concerned the church composed of brethren in Christ. The church is in the world but not of it, just as Jesus said of the apostles (Joh. 17:11-14). Living in the world where sinners lives does not mean that Christians approve the sinful things of the world. To condone sin in the church, however, does mean that the church is lending approval to sin. This idea is completely out of harmony with the terms by which Paul had addressed the church in the opening words of this epistle. There he called them sanctified and saints which implied separation from the world of sin.
covetous.People are sometimes known by the company they keep. This is true of words also, for the other terms with which a word may be associated tend to influence its meaning. Immoral conduct was abhorrent to God and should also be to godly people. But how often do we think of covetousness as being in the same category? Paul says that covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5). In this context he lists it with the fornicator, the idolater, the reviler, the drunkard, and the extortioner.
with such a one no, not to eat.So what he writes is not limited to one particular sin such as fornication. The whole list is condemned. Christians are not to try to go on living in sin of any sort.
Not to eat does not refer to the Lords supper. It is rather a reference to what has just been said about not getting mixed up with sinners in such a manner as to lend approval to sinful conduct. Paul indicates in 1Co. 10:27 that it would not be wrong for a Christian to eat with a non-Christian provided it did not involve a compromise of Christian, principles.
judging them that are without.Pauls responsibility was clearly with the church, not outsiders. He pronounced inspired judgment on those who were in the body of Christ. The world was in another category. The gospel was to be preached to all the world that they might believe and be baptized and so be saved (Mar. 16:15-16). Until men of the world get this done, they are not under the standard of conduct that governs the Christian.
God judgesh.God will judge the sinner of the world in the day of the Lord. This warning should cause sinners within and without to repent (Act. 17:30-31). Therefore Paul says, Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.
Summary
As was to be expected, a divided church that was more interested in promoting a party spirit than in becoming a living demonstration of the power of the word of the cross to transform a life had neglected its duty toward its own members. For example, one who wore the name of brother was guilty of the sin of having his fathers wife; others were going to law before pagan judges to the disgrace of the church in the eyes of the gentile world; still others were guilty of sinning against the body that God intended to be a temple of the Holy Spirit.
The apostle severely condemns the revolting sin of immoral conduct. But the attitude of the whole church toward this sin and their failure to do their duty in correcting the condition are even more severely criticized by Paul in this chapter.
Even the Gentiles would not tolerate such a sin as a man having his fathers wife, but the church had neglected to act in the case of a brother practicing this disgraceful thing. They were puffed up over divisions among them and had entirely neglected to consider the enormity of the sin that should have caused the deepest sense of shame and sorrow to the whole church.
Paul, although absent from them, had made up his mind what should be done. He told them of his decision which stood just as if he were actually present. The church should gather together and be aware of his presence in spirit because of the letter he was writing to them. The church could then act in the name of Christ, doing what Christ Himself would do, and deliver this one to Satan. The power to do this belonged to the Lord and was exercised through the inspired instruction of the apostle in connection with the obedience of the church. The action prescribed was designed to show the guilty one that Satan was the only one left to approve his guilty conduct. Pagans would then see that such a one was completely discredited as a representative of anything belonging to Christ and His church.
The purpose of this action was the destruction of the fleshthe source of the sinful conduct that led to this violation of Gods law of righteous conduct. That it is remedial in intent is evident from the expressed hope that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.
They could not escape the meaning of the solemn decree which Paul as the Lords inspired spokesmen sent to them in writing: For I, although absent in body, but present in spirit, have already passed judgment (decided the case), as if I were present, on the one who did such a thingthat is, in the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have gathered together, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to hand such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Their boasting over the superiority of one leader to the disparagement of another was not a very pretty thing. It had caused the church to be discredited in the eyes of the Gentile community. How then could they hope to win pagans to Christ? Didnt they know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? The whole church was condemned because it condoned the sin of one who was known as a brother.
Following the analogy of the passover feast during which all leaven was excluded form the homes of Gods people, Israel, Paul commands the church to rid itself of this sin for Christ their passover had already been slain. They had been separated from sin when they became Christians; they should continue, not in sin, but in the new life with Christ.
Paul explains that he had writtenin the preceding paragraph or in the lost epistlethat they were not to get mixed up with sinners. He did not mean that they were to get off the earth to avoid contact with evil. He had written to say that they should not get mixed up with an immoral person, or a covetous man, or an idol worshipper, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner who may bear the name of brother. No social contact that implied approval of such sinners was permitted.
As to the outsider, Paul said, It is not for me to judge him. God will judge sinners in the day of the Lord, but the church is responsible for carrying out the directives of the Lord with respect to the sinful conduct of its members. Pauls final word left no doubt about what they were to do. They were to remove the evil one from their midst and do it immediately. The nature of the sin demanded peremptory action by the whole church.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(9) I wrote unto you in an epistle.These words have given rise to some controversy as to whether the Apostle here refers to some former Epistle addressed to the Corinthian Church, and which has not been preserved, or whether the reference is not to this Epistle itself. It has been suggested by some who adopt the latter view that these words may have been added as an interpolation after the completion of the Epistle, and be intended to intensify the remarks made by the Apostle on this subject in 1Co. 5:6-8; 1Co. 6:9-20. Such an interpretation, however, seems rather strained. It is more natural to suppose that the reference is to an Epistle written to the Corinthians, probably from Ephesus, after a visit paid to Corinth of which we have no record, for in 2Co. 12:14; 2Co. 13:1, we read of a third visit being contemplated, whereas only one previous one is recorded. (See also Introduction.) The condition of the Church which caused the Apostle that heaviness, which he connects with this visit in 2Co. 2:1, would naturally have given rise to an Epistle containing the kind of direction here referred to.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
c. Separateness must be from evildoers in the Church where it must be rigid rather than from those without, over whom Church discipline has no authority, 1Co 5:9-13 .
9. I wrote In a former epistle not now extant. Note on Act 19:12. A respectable minority of commentators doubt the reality of this former epistle. They argue, 1. The words an epistle (literally, in the Greek, the epistle) might be rendered this epistle; and that the reference might be to 1Co 5:1-5. But this reference we think to be scarcely admissible. 2. It is not to be supposed that an apostolic epistle, a part of the sacred canon, would be lost. But we have no reason to suppose that Paul and the other apostles wrote no more letters than we now have in the New Testament. See note at close of preceding chapter.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with fornicators.’
Corinth was famous for its licentiousness and this had permeated the Christian church, helped on by false teaching. Paul had written to them previously concerning this, warning them against sexual misbehaviour and those who indulged in it, and had warned them to avoid such people. But they had failed to do so. This demonstrated that their failure to deal with the problem was not due to their being unsure what they should do, but to their lax attitude. However, there had been some misunderstanding of what he meant so he now sought to clear this up.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Explaining a misunderstood term:
v. 9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators;
v. 10. yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
v. 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.
v. 12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?
v. 13. But them, that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Paul had some time before written the Corinthians a letter which is lost, probably having been destroyed immediately for some reason. In that epistle he had used a term which had been understood falsely: Not to become intimate with fornicators. The Corinthian Christians had interpreted the word in a most rigid sense, namely, that they were bidden under no circumstances, not even in business and in the performance of their duties as citizens, to have intercourse with any persons that were addicted to immoral habits. The word which Paul had used literally means “to mix oneself up with,” and he now interprets it for them: I did not altogether forbid your holding intercourse with the fornicators of this world or with the avaricious, robbers, or idolaters. If they had the intention of shutting themselves entirely away from all men that were guilty of these sins, even in the course of their ordinary business life, then the inevitable result would be that they must get out of the world. It was impossible to pursue any avocation at Corinth, without coming into daily contact with immoral, rapacious, idolatrous people. Paul was very well aware of this inevitable intercourse; he was far from suggesting or approving the life of anchorites, hermits, and monks. But now, in the present epistle, he is couching his admonitions in such language that his meaning is unmistakable. If anyone was still in doubt as to the interpretation of the former letter, it would be impossible to mistake his meaning now: If any one calling himself a brother, professing to be a member of the Christian congregation, enrolled as one of their own number, is a fornicator, or avaricious, or an idolater, or a reviler, an abuser of others, or a drunkard, with such a one you should not even eat. Paul gives only a few examples of flagrant, heinous offenses, which obviously make a person unworthy of belonging to the communion of the Christian brethren. Business transactions a Christian may have with such persons, but to enter into friendly relations of social intimacy with them, to hold fraternal, friendly commerce with men of this stamp, such conduct will never agree with the Christian profession. So far as the unbelievers are concerned, the Christian congregation has no jurisdiction over them: What business have I to judge those that are without? We Christians know indeed that the unbelievers and gross sinners are under the condemnation of God, and circumstances often arise that we inform them to that effect, but the apostle here speaks of communion, of social intimacy within the congregation, of Christian fellowship. Since unbelievers are not members of the Christian congregation, the jurisdiction of the congregation does not extend to them. Do not you judge those that are within, while those without God judges? As the Judge of the world, God is taking care of the sentence of those without, of the unbelievers. So far as the congregation at Corinth is concerned, they should remove the wicked man from their midst, expel him from their communion, and thus preserve the purity of their membership in Christ. The formal expulsion of the malignant sinner must proceed from the congregation as a self-governing body. Note: The necessity of church discipline is here maintained and must be upheld if the Christian congregation is to fulfill its destiny and purpose.
Summary. Paul earnestly reproves the Corinthians for their neglect to discipline an incestuous person in their midst, warns them to purge out the old leaven, and corrects a misunderstanding as to social intimacy with flagrant transgressors of the Decalogue, whose expulsion from the congregation he demands.
Church Discipline
The question of church discipline in a Christian congregation does not come under the heading of things indifferent, as St. Paul shows in the chapter above, its use rather being enjoined and insisted upon in Scriptures in the most emphatic terms. The fact that very many congregations are neglecting this important part of the duties imposed upon them by the Lord of the Church argues for the increasing worldliness of the Church, is, in fact, in many cases an indication of disintegration. The teaching of Scriptures on this point is very plain.
The Lord, first of all, gives very distinct instructions as to the persons in whose case church discipline is to be exercised. These are the brothers and sisters that belong to the congregation, that have joined the congregation, either by baptism and confirmation, or on the basis of a letter of dismissal from another congregation, or by a profession of faith which indicated complete spiritual unity. As long as a person is in this sense a member of the congregation, so long he or she is under the jurisdiction of the congregation, as far as church discipline is concerned, Mat 18:15; 1Co 5:11. If a person declares that he or she is no longer a member of the congregation, and insists upon having nothing more to do with the congregation, then the latter can only make a statement, declaring that such a person belongs to them that are without, 1Co 5:12. It must be expressly understood, however, that the jurisdiction of the congregation is not limited to the voting members nor to the men, but includes all the members of the congregation, men and women, young and old.
To be liable to church discipline, a person must be a sinner, not, indeed, in the sense that we all fail, that we daily sin much and deserve nothing but punishment, that we find ourselves obliged to put off our sins by daily contrition and repentance, but in the sense of being a flagrant, open, willful offender and transgressor of the will of God. The sins with which we are here concerned are transgressions of an unmistakable word of God, sins which take away faith out of the heart and render a person a non-Christian. Some of these are mentioned 1Co 5:11. Others are: deliberate neglect of the Christian instruction of children, remiss-ness in the use of the means of grace, obstinate defense of an obvious heresy, enmity and implacableness, denial of a fundamental truth of Scriptures, and many more. If a member of the congregation becomes guilty of these and similar sins, as plainly prohibited in the Decalogue, then he becomes liable to church discipline.
The Lord has also prescribed the form which church discipline is to take. As a rule, the steps given in Mat 18:15-18 are to be observed. He that knows of the sin that has been committed should first approach the sinner and should try to gain his brother. If all his efforts fail, then he should take one or two witnesses along with him and repeat his attempt. Loving patience is essential at this point. But if every endeavor meets with the same obstinate resistance, then the matter must finally be brought to the attention of the congregation. And here again, all long-suffering must be employed, as long as there is any hope whatsoever of gaining the erring member. It is only when every effort proves futile that the resolution of excommunication should be passed. Under circumstances, especially when the sin is known to the majority of the church-members, when it is a notorious infamy or scandal, this procedure may be suspended, 1Ti 5:20. Even in this case, however, the wisdom of charity will usually find that it is better to treat the matter in a smaller circle first. At all times the members of the congregation must remain conscious of the fact that the mind of Jesus Christ must live in them, and that all their efforts must be guided by a truly evangelical spirit. For the object of church discipline is always to gain the brother, if possible, to bring him to a realization of his transgression, and to keep him in the midst of the congregation. And even when the decree of excommunication must be spoken, it should be done in sorrow and in the hope that, in the dispensation of God, the spirit of the offender may yet be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1Co 5:5.
Church discipline is in charge of the congregation, Mat 18:20 ; 1Co 5:4 . “It is true, our meeting of the voting members is not the entire congregation, but it represents the entire congregation and forms a meeting which is well adapted for the exercise of church discipline. It is perfectly evident that children and such as are not of age are not yet able to take part in the exercise of this power. For this presupposes a certain degree of Christian knowledge and a certain maturity of character. Furthermore, the Lord Himself has excluded the women from public speaking and voting in the congregation. And therefore it has become the custom among us to give to the male members of the congregation that have completed the twenty-first year of their life the right to vote, and to place the government of the congregation and the exercise of church discipline into the hands of these members. It may even happen that the exercise of the admonition in the third step is entrusted to a smaller circle. This is the case particularly when it concerns a person of the female sex, who might be too bashful to appear before a larger assembly of men. In that case the object of church discipline, namely, that of gaining the sister, may be reached more easily in a smaller circle. “
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 5:9. I wrote, &c. I have written unto you in an [this] Epistle. Instead of fornicators, in this and the following verses, some very properly render the original word , by lewd persons, as it is plain the Apostle intended the word should be taken in that extent; his argumentconcluding yet more strongly against some other species of lewdness, than against what is called simple fornication, detestable as that is. See on 1Co 5:1.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 5:9 . Sequence of thought : What I have written to you thus far concerning the exclusion of the incestuous person, and concerning the purging out of the leaven, leads me now to speak of the passage in my former letter which has been misunderstood among you, etc.
] i.e. in the letter which I wrote to you , and so: in my letter , by which Paul means the letter to the Corinthians, composed before the present one and in the possession of his readers, but not in ours. So rightly Ambrosiaster, and after him Calvin, Beza, Estius, Clarius, Zeger, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Wetstein, Mosheim, Semler, and many others, including most modern interpreters. Chrysostom, again, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fabricius, Wolf, Glass, Baumgarten, Bolten, Stosch ( de epp. ap. non deperd. 1753, p. 75 ff.), and Mller ( de trib. Pauli itinerib. Corinth. suscept. de epistolisque ad eosd. non deperdit. , Basil. 1831), understand it of the present Epistle , either supposing that a reference is intended to 1Co 5:2 ; 1Co 5:6 , or even making . apply to 1Co 5:11 . This method of interpretation arises for the most part from dogmatic prejudices, [824] and has against it the following considerations: first , the parallel passage in 2Co 7:8 ; secondly , that . would in that case be singularly superfluous; thirdly , the fact that . . occurs neither in 1Co 5:2 nor 1Co 5:6 ; and finally , that no occasion at all had been given in the preceding statements for any such misapprehension as is here corrected. Lange, in his Apostol. Zeitalter , I. p. 205, pronounces in a peculiarly positive way that the hypothesis of a lost Epistle is a “ fiction ;” Paul means the present letter, but distinguishes it as a letter from the ecstatic act which he had just performed through the medium of this letter, namely, the transference of himself in spirit into the midst of the church; what he wishes to declare is the permanent epistolary significance of that act. But this itself is quite an empty “ fiction ,” since there is not a trace of an ecstasy here, since Paul would, on this theory, have taken the very vaguest way possible of expressing his supposed meaning, and since the parallel statement in 2Co 7:8 is decisively against any such arbitrary fancies. It may be added that, when Rckert holds that the article here, and the absence of any defining adjective, prove the lost Epistle to have been the only one which Paul had then already sent to Corinth, this, on a comparison with 2Co 7:8 , appears to be an over-hasty conclusion, although, so far as the fact itself is concerned, it may be regarded as correct, seeing that we have no hint of any other lost letter having also preceded our first Epistle.
.] to mix oneself up with, have intercourse with , 2Th 3:14 ; Athen. vi. p. 256 A; Lucian. Cont. xv. Comp the affirmative , 2Th 3:6 .
, in the N. T. and in Sir 23:16 , signifies fornicator . [826] See also Lennep. Phalar. ep. xi. p. 60. 2.
[824] Grotius aptly remarks: “Satis Deo debemus, quod tot (epistolae) servatae sunt, ad quas si et singulorum vita et regimen ecclesiae dirigatur, bene erit.” Comp. Calvin. Calovius, in order to defend the integrity of the canon against the Roman Catholics, insists upon the distinction which itself owes its origin to a dogmatic retrospective inference between canon particularis and universalis, temporalis and perpetuus . Divine Providence, he holds, did not design the lost Epistle ad usum canonicum perpetuum of the whole church, and therefore allowed it to perish.
[826] In the classics, mostly of unnatural vice (with males). Becker, Charides , I. p. 346 ff.; Hermann, Privatalterth . xxix. 22.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
1Co 5:9-13 . Citation and fuller explanation of a passage of the former letter which had been misinterpreted in Corinth by his malevolent adversaries . The new section begins without a connective particle, like 1Co 6:1 , 1Co 5:1 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: (10) Yet not altogether the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. (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. (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
I do not think it necessary to detain the Reader with any particular observation on what is here said in those verses. He very plainly teacheth us, that what he wrote was to the Church, not to the ungodly world. He saith that he hath nothing to do in judging them that are without. These he leaves to the Lord. But his affectionate advice was to the Church. And to the Church he again recommends their putting away from among them that wicked person. And if, as I am inclined to think, that this putting away, was for a season from ordinances, for the humbling the soul, and admonishing the Church, it serves to shew, how watchful the Apostle was over Ordinances and Church government, and becomes a suitable pattern for the Church or God, in all ages, to adopt upon all like occasions of sin in the members
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Ver. 9. Not to company with fornicators ] Dion Chrysostom saith, that Corinth was the most luxurious and lascivious city in the world, . Strabo saith, that Venus had a most stately temple there, that was kept by more than a thousand beautiful courtesans. Another saith, that it was the brothel house of Greece, and a most filthy market town of abominable lusts. (Molin.) Cicero indeed calleth it lumen Groeciae, the light or eye of Greece. It might be so in some respects. But surely this sin was no small snuff in this light, but a blemish in this eye.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9 13 .] Correction of their misunderstanding of a former command of his respecting keeping company with fornicators .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
9. ] I wrote to you in my letter (not this present epistle , which might mean, see reff., for there is nothing in the preceding part of this Epistle which can by any possibility be so interpreted, certainly not either 1Co 5:2 or 1Co 5:6 , which are commonly alleged by those who thus explain it and would be a superfluous and irrelevant addition, if he meant the letter on which he was now engaged: but, a former epistle , which has not come down to us: cf. the similar expression, ref. 2 Cor. used with reference to this Epistle, and see note on 2Co 1:15-16 . So Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grot., Calov., Bengel, Wetst., Mosh., De Wette, Meyer: so also Lightfoot, understanding however an Epistle committed to Timothy , see ch. 1Co 4:17 ; which could not be, as Timothy was not coming to them till after they had received this Epistle, ch. 1Co 16:10 , and thus the words would be unintelligible to them: on the other side are Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Corn.-a-lapide, Wolf, al. It has been suggested (see Stanley, in loc.) that the whole passage, ch. 1Co 5:9 to 1Co 6:8 , may have been a postscript or note inserted subsequently to the rest of the Epistle, and referring especially to ch. 1Co 6:9-20 ) not to keep company with fornicators.
1Co 5:9-13 . 16. A PREVIOUS LETTER MISREAD. The Cor [850] Church were taking no action against the offender of 15; in this neglect they disregarded the Apostle’s instructions conveyed by some recent letter. These instructions they appear to have misunderstood, reading them as though Paul forbade Christians to have any dealings with immoral persons, and asking for further explanation. Not improbably, they were making their uncertainty on the general question an excuse for hesitation in this urgent and flagrant case. Accordingly the Ap., after giving sentence upon the of 1Co 5:1 f., repeats with all possible distinctness his direction to excommunicate persons of openly immoral life from the Church . Profligates of the world must be left to God’s sole judgment. P. felt that there was an evasion, prompted by the disposition to palter with sin, in the misunderstanding reported to him; hence the closing words of the last Section, condemning the “leaven of badness and wickedness” and commending the “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. On the nature and occasion of the lost letter , see Introd. , chap. 2.
[850] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
1Co 5:9 . “I wrote to you in the (my) letter” the last the Cor [851] had received from P., which is recalled by the matter just discussed. The Ff [852] , except Ambrosiaster (? Hilary of Rome, prob. Isaac, a converted Jew), referred the to this Ep. , reading the vb [853] as epistolary aorist (as in 1Co 5:11 ; see Bn [854] 44); but there is nothing in 1 Cor. to sustain the ref [855] , and seems “added expressly to guard against this interpretation” (Ed [856] ). Modern expositors, from Cv [857] downwards, find the traces here of a lost Ep. antecedent to our First; 2Co 10:10 f. intimates that the Cor [858] had received several letters from P. before the canonical Second. Some have found in 2Co 6:14 to 2Co 7:1 a stray leaf of the missing document; that par. is certainly germane to its purpose (see Hilgenfeld, Einleit. in das N.T. , p. 287; Whitelaw, in Classical Review , 1890, pp. 12, 317 f.). The ambiguity lay in the word ( to mix oneself up with ), which forbids social intimacy, while those who wished to misunderstand took it as a prohibition of all intercourse.
[851] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[852] Fathers.
[853] verb
[854] E. Burton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the N.T. (1894).
[855] reference.
[856] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[857] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[858] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 5:9-13
9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
1Co 5:9 “I wrote you in my letter” This probably refers to a lost letter (cf. A, T, Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 115, and M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 769). It is possible that several of Paul’s letters have been lost (cf. Col 4:16) or it could be an epistolary aorist (cf. 1Co 9:15), which would refer to 1 Corinthians, which he was currently writing (cf. 1Co 5:11). See Introduction to 1 Corinthians, VII. C.
“immoral people” This is the Greek term pornos (cf. 1Co 5:9-11; 1Co 6:9). It relates to “immorality” (i.e., porneia cf. 1Co 5:1 [twice]; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 6:18; 1Co 7:2; 2Co 12:21) and “commit immorality” (i.e., porneu, cf. 1Co 6:18; 1Co 10:8).
These new believers at Corinth were mostly Gentiles (probably Romans). Pagans worshiped with drunkenness and sexual acts at the temples of their gods and at special public and private dinners. Their new faith in Christ was still tainted with their Gentile past and culture.
SPECIAL TOPIC: VICES AND VIRTUES IN THE NT
1Co 5:10 Paul’s letter had been misunderstood. Paul urged the new believers to flee immorality. However, some interpreted this as “never associate with.” Paul had to clarify his meaning. Believers live in a fallen world; it is impossible not to come in contact with immoral people (especially if we take seriously Mat 28:19). What Paul meant was do not let active pagans be your covenant brother, fellow church members, or even best friend. This is a Present middle infinitive of the term sunanamignumi, which means “to mix together” (cf. 1Co 5:9; 1Co 5:11; 2Th 3:6; 2Th 3:14). 1Co 5:10-11 give a clear picture of the cultural setting of the church at Corinth.
1Co 5:11
NASB”any so-called brother”
NKJV”anyone named a brother”
NRSV”anyone who bears the name of brother or sister”
TEV”a person who calls himself a believer”
NJB”anyone going by the name of brother”
This phrase is a present passive participle, which links up with the third class conditional sentence. It refers to someone claiming the name of Christ (cf. Eph 5:3) or calling on the name of Christ (cf. Rom 10:9-13; Php 2:11). Taking Christ’s name meant taking His character. It is very clear that Paul (like Jesus) believed that one’s lifestyle revealed one’s true self (cf. Mat 7:15-23). Profession must be matched with knowledge of the gospel, the indwelling Spirit, personal obedience, and perseverance.
“a reviler” See note at 1Co 4:12.
“if” This is a third class conditional sentence, which means possible action. There are several lists in Paul’s writings of the sins of the flesh (cf. Rom 1:29-32; 1Co 5:10-11; 1Co 6:9-10; 2Co 12:20; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 4:31; Eph 5:3-4; Col 3:5-9).
“not even to eat with such a one” This may refer to the Lord’s Supper, but could refer to social contact (cf. 1Co 10:27). In Roman culture dinners were often opportunities for immorality.
1Co 5:12 Paul and the church must deal with members (1Co 5:12 expects a “yes” answer), but believers must allow God to deal with non-members. Believers must not judge one another (cf. Mat 7:1 ff; Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13), but
1. we must examine each other’s fruits for leadership positions (cf. 1Co 6:1-3; Matthew 7)
2. we must exercise church discipline when the reputation of the church is at risk
This is often a fine line! By implication Paul is asserting that the sinning man of 1Co 5:1 must be placed in the realm of God’s judgment (i.e., outside the church).
One wonders how this context relates to modern societies where believers and non-believers have an opportunity by voting to regulate social norms. Should believers vigorously participate in the political process? This context is limited to judgment relating to church discipline and not western, modern democracy. Believers are citizens of two realms with obligations and privileges in both! God’s Spirit, God’s will, and God’s Book help us as believers find our way in this fallen world, but unbelievers are exploited and manipulated by sin, self, and Satan. They need our witness and compassion, not our judgmental self-righteousness. They are not capable of understanding our motives, purposes, and actions.
The problem of when and how Christians should “judge” each other caused several Greek manuscripts to alter this text.
1. The very early papyrus manuscript P46 (about A.D. 200) as well as the Bahairic Coptic translation (3rd century) and Peshitta Syriac translation (5th century) just omit the negative and translate the sentence as an imperative, “Judge ye those who are inside [the church]” (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 551).
2. The Sahidic Coptic translation (3rd century) put the negative with the preceding sentence, “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside and not those who are inside? Judge those who are inside” (Metzger, p. 51).
3. The UBS4 text does not even acknowledge the possibility of these variants as original.
1Co 5:13 Paul clinched his argument from the Jewish point of view by alluding to the writings of Moses (cf. Deu 13:5; Deu 17:7; Deu 17:12; Deu 19:19; Deu 21:21; Deu 22:21; Deu 22:24; Deu 24:7). If the church tolerates (even glories in) immoral members they will affect the whole church (cf. 1Co 5:11).
an = the, i.e. the present one.
company. Literally mix together. Greek. sunanamignumi. Elsewhere, 1Co 5:11 and 2Th 3:14.
9-13.] Correction of their misunderstanding of a former command of his respecting keeping company with fornicators.
1Co 5:9. , I wrote) A new part of the wepistle, corresponding to the former part; comp. 1Co 5:1.- , in the epistle) written before this one. The Corinthians had not sufficiently understood it; he now therefore explains it. There is no doubt, that Paul and Peter and the rest of the apostles wrote many things, which are not now extant; comp. 1Co 16:3; 2Co 10:10.- , not to be mixed together) in the way of association; 1Co 5:11 at the end.-, with fornicators) , on other occasions signifies a male prostitute, but here it applies to every one, who commits fornication. Supply here also from 1Co 5:11, or covetous, etc.
1Co 5:9
1Co 5:9
I wrote unto you in my epistle-Some think he means that he had so written them in this letter. This the expression would not allow, for he intends to modify now directions hitherto given. So Paul had doubtless written a letter to them before this, in which he had given the directions here noted.
to have no company with fornicators;-A fornicator is one who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried person, but the word is frequently used to denote all unlawful intercourse. (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9). To have company with is to associate with and treat one as worthy of companionship and association. The Christian is not to treat the guilty person as such. The object, no doubt, is to make the fornicator feel the disgrace and shame of his course and bring him to repentance.
not: 1Co 5:2, 1Co 5:7, Psa 1:1, Psa 1:2, Pro 9:6, 2Co 6:14, 2Co 6:17, Eph 5:11, 2Th 3:14
Reciprocal: Lev 13:46 – without Psa 26:5 – will Pro 5:22 – sins Mat 9:11 – Why Mat 18:17 – let Luk 5:29 – and there Luk 15:2 – General Rom 16:17 – and 1Co 10:27 – bid 2Co 12:21 – uncleanness 1Th 4:3 – that Heb 12:16 – any fornicator
1Co 5:9. I wrote refers to an epistle Paul wrote previously, for up to this verse there has been nothing said on the subject at hand. Col 4:16 speaks of an epistle sent to the Laodiceans, so we know that he wrote some letters that were not intended to become a part of the New Testament compilation. In the epistle referred to here, Paul gave instructions not to company with fornicators. We do not know what occasioned that letter nor why that particular instruction was given. The three words come from the Greek word SUNANAMIGNUMI, and Thayer defines it, “to mix up together; to keep company with, be intimate with, one.” Further comments will be made when we come to verse 11.
1Co 5:9. I wrote unto you in my epistle not to company with fornicators. This statement raises a question which has occasioned not a little discussionWhat Epistle is here referred to? The present Epistle, say some, viewing what follows as a sort of postscript to the preceding verses. (So Chrysostom, Erasmus, Middle ton, Stanley.) But the objection to this is that neither in the preceding verses nor in any previous chapter is any such general injunction given. The only alternative is, that there is here a reference to some previously-written letter to that church not now preserved.
(So Calvin, Beza, Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Alford.[1]) Nor is this unworthy of Inspiration, as is evident from the Old Testament prophetic writings, which are very far from containing all that the prophets uttered by inspiration. And though all that our Lord spoke and acted must have been pre-eminently worthy of permanent record, yet the last Evangelist says that the world would not have contained it. Why, then, should everything which an apostle found occasion to write require of necessity to be recorded for all time? Certain it is that the Corinthians sent written questions to the apostle on points of practical difficulty, and even on this very subject (1Co 7:1); and if one of these related to what intercourse, if any, they should keep up with their heathen friends and fellow-citizens, and a messenger was then going to Corinth who could take his answer, how naturally might he send a hasty reply by him, with the promise to write more fully thereafter! In this case, would he not refer to that letter very much as he here does? and of course the present letter would be understood as superseding the other.
[1] It is replied to this, that since the same tense (the aorist) is used both in 1Co 5:9 and in 1Co 5:11, they must be rendered alike in botheither I wrote or I write. But the shade of thought in the latter case is in English most intelligibly conveyed by our present tense, and Greek usage sufficiently bears this out.
Here our apostle tells them, that he had written to them in this, or some other epistle, before he was fully acquainted with their affairs, not to company with fornicators; that is, to shun all intimacy and familiarity with infidels: but he did not mean or intend that they should have no converse or commerce with them, because they lived among unbelievers, and could not go out of the world.
But now since he heard of the miscarriage of this incestuous person, who was certainly a Christian, and probably a doctor or teacher among them, he warns them to avoid all brotherly intimacy and familiarity with scandalous Christians, lest the church be thought to favour such: With such an one, says he, no, not to eat; admit not such to your own table, much less to Christ’s.
Learn from hence, 1. That all necessary society, and intimate familiarity with scandalous professors, ought to be avoided, that religion may not be thought to favour them, and the church may not suffer by them.
Learn, 2. That as it ought to be the church’s care to purge out such, and separate them from her communion; so is it every private Christian’s duty to avoid that familiarity with them which is in their power, even that which lieth in friendly eating with them.
Learn, 3. If civil eating with scandalous professors of religion be forbidden at our own table, much less ought any church to permit and suffer them a religious eating at the Lord’s table, which was never spread for such guests.
Disciplining Sinners in the Church
Christ’s apostle to the Gentiles had warned them in some previous epistle not to “keep company with sexually immoral people.” Those included in such a description could have been involved in any type of sexual immorality. Those Christians who would keep out the leaven of sin were instructed not to keep company with such. Thayer says the word for company means “to mix together,” “to keep company with, be intimate.” Lipscomb says, “To have company with is to associate with and treat one as worthy of companionship and association…The object, no doubt, is to make the fornicator feel the disgrace and shame of his course and bring him to repentance” ( 1Co 5:9 ).
Paul went on to explain that his instructions did not include those in the world involved in sexual immorality, covetousness, extortioners or idolaters. The word “covetous” would describe those seeking to obtain what is another’s in an unlawful way, while an extortioner uses power or threats to take what is not his, or more than is right. An idolater would be anyone who set something above God, especially the false gods served by some in Corinth, like Aphrodite. In 2Th 3:14 , Paul wrote adding another type of Christian other Christians should not associate with in a social way. “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.”
To avoid associating with these types of people generally would have required a Christian to live somewhere outside the world. Obviously, normal daily activities necessitate Christians associating with sinners in the world, so the rule could not apply to them. Instead, the rule was intended to cause Christians to avoid those who were evil within the church ( 1Co 5:10 ).
1Co 5:9-11. I wrote to you in a former epistle Doubtless both Paul and the other apostles wrote many things which are not extant now; not to company , not to be intermixed, not to associate with fornicators, and such scandalous sinners; not to contract any intimacy or acquaintance with them, more than is absolutely necessary. Yet not altogether I did not mean thereby that ye should altogether refrain from conversing with heathen, who are guilty of that sin, or others equally heinous; or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters Sinners against themselves, their neighbour, and God. For then must ye needs go out of the world Then all civil commerce must cease, the citizens of Corinth being generally such. So that going out of the world, which some account a perfection, Paul accounts an utter absurdity. But now I have written unto you Now I explain my mind more fully, that I meant it of persons professing Christianity: not to keep company To abstain from ordinary, familiar, unnecessary converse with them. If any man that is called a brother A Christian, and a member of your church; be a fornicator, &c., with such a one, no not to eat Which is the lowest degree of familiarity. The sense of this is, that a conscientious Christian should choose, as far as he can, the company, intercourse, and familiarity of good men, and such as fear God; and avoid, as far as his necessary affairs will permit, the conversation and fellowship of such as Paul here describes. This is a thing (what decay soever of public discipline there may be) in each particular Christians power.
Vv. 9, 10. I wrote unto you in my epistle not to company with fornicators; 10. not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
Paul begins with recalling the terms of which he made use (1Co 5:9); then he sets aside the false sense which had been attached to them (1Co 5:10), and states his real judgment (1Co 5:11); finally, he justifies his judgment in 1Co 5:12-13. , literally, in the Epistle, the one you know. It is vain for Chrysostom, Erasmus, Lange, to allege that Paul alludes to 1Co 5:2; 1Co 5:6-7 of this same chapter, or for Lardner to attempt to find here the announcement of what is about to follow, 1Co 5:10-13. It is easy to see that nothing in what precedes contained the direction given here, and that the , I wrote, can only refer to the rectification of an idea which had been fathered on Paul, and which had been reported to him. A correspondence between Paul and the Church had certainly preceded our Epistle; comp. 1Co 7:1 : Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me. In 2Co 7:8, Paul refers, using the same expression, to a previous letter. Had there not been dogmatic reasons for denying the possibility of the loss of an apostolic document, this meaning would not have been contested.
The term to company (mingle) with, , strictly denotes living in an intimate and continuous relation with one, emphasizing the intimacy, and the repetition of the acts. Does the rupture demanded by the apostle refer to the conduct of Christians in private life, or to ecclesiastical communion? In any case, the Corinthians could not have thought of an ecclesiastical rupture with people with whom no ecclesiastical bond existed. Did they not apply Paul’s regulation to sinners who were yet outside of the Church? We may see in 2Th 3:14 how the expression not to company with is synonymous with , to hold aloof from, of 1Co 5:6; and in that context the term certainly refers to private life. Finally, if the matter in question here were the ecclesiastical relation, the apostle would not have to say to believers, Do not company with the vicious, but, Do not allow the vicious to company with you. This precept of Paul’s is parallel to that of John, Second Epistle, 1Co 5:10 : If any one bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting.
I wrote unto you in my epistle [see introduction] to have no company with fornicators;
9. We see from this verse that this is not the first epistle to the Corinthians, but the second, the first doubtless, with many others, having been lost.
Verse 9
In an epistle; apparently referring to, some former Epistle, now lost.
SECTION 8 THEY MUST WITHDRAW, NOT FROM ALL WICKED MEN, BUT FROM ALL WICKED CHURCH-MEMBERS CH. 5:9-13
I wrote to you, in the letter, not to be mixed up with fornicators. Not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous ones and grasping ones or idolaters. Since, if so, you ought to go forth out of the world. And now I have written to you not to be mixed up, if any one bearing the name of brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or drunken, or grasping; with such a one not even to eat together. For what have I to do with judging those outside? As to yourselves, is it not those within whom you judge? But those outside God judges. Take away the bad man from among yourselves.
1Co 5:9. A new subject closely connected with the foregoing, introduced abruptly by a reference to something Paul has already written to the Corinthians.
In the letter: a previous letter. Cp. 2Co 7:8; which refers evidently to this First extant Epistle. Had Paul written no earlier letter and referred here only to 1Co 5:1-8, these words would be needless and meaningless: whereas, if he wished to say that he referred here not to some earlier letter but to this one, he would certainly have written in this letter. Moreover, the word now in 1Co 5:11 contrasts 1Co 5:1-8 with something written before. An earlier letter from Paul to the Corinthians is by no means impossible or unlikely; and seems to be implied in 2Co 10:10. Nothing is proved by Rom 16:22; 1Th 5:27; Col 4:16 : for they refer to a letter just finished, and the word letter is needful to make up the sense. We need not suppose that Paul wrote no letters but those now extant. God has preserved so many as He saw to be needful for the direction and edification of the church. But there were doubtless others, written under the guidance of the Spirit and for those who received them clothed with apostolic authority, which attained their purpose by meeting a temporary emergency. In the letter, refers to some one definite letter, known to the Corinthians, which Paul has here in view; and therefore does not imply that he had written to them only one earlier letter.
5:9 {9} I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
(9) Now he speaks more generally: and that which he spoke before of the incestuous person he shows that it pertains to others, who are known to be wicked and those who through their wicked life are a slander to the Church, who ought also by lawful order be cast out of the community of the Church. And making mention of eating meals, either he means that feast of love at which the supper of the Lord was received, or else their common usage and manner of life. And this is to be properly understood, lest any man should think that either matrimony was broken by excommunication, or such duties hindered and cut off by it, as we owe one to another: children to their parents, subjects to their rulers, servants to their masters, and neighbour to neighbour, to win one another to God.
The Christian’s relationship to fornicators 5:9-13
Paul proceeded to deal with the larger issue of the believer’s relationship to fornicators inside and outside the church. He did this so his readers would understand their responsibility in this area of their lives in their immoral city and abandon their arrogant self-righteousness.
Paul had written this congregation a previous letter that is no longer extant. [Note: See my comments on this letter in the Introduction section of these notes.] In it he urged the Corinthians to avoid associating with fornicators. The same Greek word, pornois, occurs here as in 1Co 5:1. In view of this instruction the Corinthians’ toleration of the incestuous brother in the church was especially serious.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)