1. Korinther 5:11 Kommentar

In this chapter the apostle, I. Blames them for their indulgence in the case of the incestuous person, and orders him to be excommunicated, and delivered to Satan (Co1 5:1-6). II. He exhorts them to Christian purity, by purging out the old leaven (Co1 5:7, Co1 5:8). And, III. Directs them to shun even the common conversation of Christians who were guilty of any notorious and flagitious wickedness (Co1 5:9 to the end).

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS 5 In this chapter the apostle blames the Corinthians for conniving at a sin committed by one of their members; declares what he was determined to do, and what should be done by them in this case; and in general advises to shun conversation with wicked men; in Co1 5:1 mention is made of the sin committed by one among themselves, and which was publicly known, and commonly talked of; and which in general was fornication, and particularly incest, a man lying with his father's wife; and which is aggravated by its being what was not named, or could not be named among any virtuous persons among the Gentiles without offence: and yet the members of this church, at least the majority of them, were unconcerned at it, and were so far from mourning over it, and taking any step to remove the person from them that had done it, that they were swelled with pride, and gloried on account of their gifts, and perhaps on account of this man, who had committed the iniquity, Co1 5:2. This affair being related to the apostle, though at a distance; and he well knowing all things concerning it, as though he was present, resolved what should be done in this case by himself, Co1 5:3 and that was to deliver the man to Satan, in the name, and with the power and authority of Christ, when the members of this church were gathered together, and his Spirit with them; the end of which was for the destruction of the man's body, and the salvation of his soul, Co1 5:4 and then the apostle returns to blame them for their glorying in men, and in external gifts, and pleading these as a reason why the man should be continued, and not removed from them; not considering the danger they were exposed to, and which he illustrates by the simile of leaven, a little of which affects the whole lump: suggesting thereby the danger they were in by continuing such a wicked person among them, Co1 5:6 wherefore pursuing, the same metaphor, taken from the Jewish passover, he exhorts to remove from them the man that had sinned, as the Jews at the passover removed the leaven out of their houses; that so they might appear to be a church renewed, and purged, and clear of leaven, keeping the true and spiritual passover, which they were under obligation to do, since Christ, the antitype of the passover, was sacrificed for them, Co1 5:7 wherefore it became them to keep the feast of the Lord's supper; and indeed, to have the whole course of their conversation so ordered, as to avoid sin and sinners, and to behave in truth and uprightness, Co1 5:8 when the apostle goes on to put them in mind of what he had formerly written unto them, as suitable to the present case, which was, that they should not keep company with wicked men, particularly with fornicators, such as this man, though in a more heinous manner, Co1 5:9 and explains what was his meaning; not that they were to have no manner of conversation with persons of such a character, and of such like evil characters, in things of a civil nature, for then there would be no living in the world, Co1 5:10. But his sense was, that they should keep no company with persons guilty of the sins mentioned, who bore the name of Christian brethren, and were members of the same church state with them, from whose communion they ought to be removed; and indeed, so much familiarity with them should not be indulged, as even to eat with them, Co1 5:11. The reason of this difference, which he made between wicked men, who were not members of the church, and those that were, is because he had nothing to do, nor they neither, with them that were without the church, as it was their business only to take cognizance of them that were within, Co1 5:12 but neither of them had anything to do, to judge and censure those that did not belong to the church, but should leave them to God, the righteous Judge; and then closes all, Co1 5:13 with what he had chiefly in view throughout the whole chapter, and that is, that they would remove from their communion the wicked person who had been guilty of the sin first mentioned.

But now have I written unto you,.... Which shows, that what he had written before was at another time, and in another epistle; but not that what he was now writing was different from the former, only he explains the persons of whom, and the thing about which he has before written: not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator; or if any man that is a brother is called, or named a fornicator; or covetous, or an idolater; or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no, not to eat. The apostle's meaning is, that in his prohibition of keeping company with men of the above character, he would be understood of such persons as were called brethren; who had been received into the church, and had been looked upon, and had professed themselves to be such; and who might be mentioned by name, as notoriously guilty of fornication, covetousness, idolatry, and extortion, mentioned in the former verse; to which are added two other sins any of them might be addicted to, as "railing" either at their fellow brethren and Christians, or others giving reproachful language to them, and fixing invidious characters on them: and "drunkenness"; living in the frequent commission of that sin, and others before spoken of; and that such persons remaining impenitent and incorrigible, still persisting, in such a vicious course of life, after due admonition given them, were not only to be removed from their religious society, from the communion of the church, and be debarred sitting down, and eating with them at the Lord's table, or at their love feasts, but also were to be denied civil conversation and familiarity with them, and even not suffered to eat common food at the same table with them: which though lawful to be used with the men of the world, yet for some reasons were not advisable to be used with such; partly for vindicating the honour of religion, and preventing the stumbling of the weak; and partly to make such offenders ashamed, and bring them to repentance. The apostle alludes to the behaviour of the Jews, either to persons that were under any pollution, as a woman in the days of her separation, when her husband , "might not eat with her" off of the same plate, nor at the same table, nor on the same cloth; nor might she drink with him, nor mix his cup for him; and the same was observed to persons that had issues on them (o): or rather to such as were under "the sentence of excommunication", and such an one was obliged to sit the distance of four cubits from others, and who might not eat nor drink with him; nor was he allowed to wash and shave himself, nor a sufficiency of food, nor any to sit with him within the space of four cubits, except those of his house (p). (o) Maimon. Hilch. Issure Bia, c. 11. sect. 17, 18, 19. & Tumaot Okelim, c. 16. sect. 11. & R. Abraham in ib. (p) T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. & Piske Tosaph. in ib. art. 67, 68.

If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion; but is a fox, a destroyer of the vineyard of Christ. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest ye perish along with him, even should he be thy father, thy son, thy brother, or a member of thy family.

And just as then, those who led vicious lives, and put other people astray, were condemned and cast out, so also even now the offending eye is plucked out, and the foot and the hand, lest the rest of the body perish in like manner. And we have the precept: "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." And again does the apostle say, "Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of mistrust. Be not ye therefore partakers with them."

Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;" neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons.

Since, however, he quotes with especial care, as a proof in his domain, a certain companion in misery (suntalai/pwron), and associate in hatred (summisou/menon), with himself, for the cure of leprosy, I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food, forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious: wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner.

If these things are so, it is certain that believers contracting marriages with Gentiles are guilty of fornication, and are to be excluded from all communication with the brotherhood, in accordance with the letter of the apostle, who says that "with persons of that kind there is to be no taking of food even." Or shall we "in that day" produce (our) marriage certificates before the Lord's tribunal, and allege that a marriage such as He Himself has forbidden has been duly contracted? What is prohibited (in the passage just referred to) is not "adultery; "It is not "fornication.

In like manner keep yourselves separate from all those of whom the apostle makes mention when he says, "with such persons, no, not to eat; ". Those also are to be dealt with in like manner of whom he says, "With such persons, no, not to eat; "

For since he had said, "Ye have not rather mourned, that such an one should be taken away;" and, "Purge out the old leaven;" and it was likely that they would surmise it to be their duty to avoid all fornicators: for if he that has sinned imparts some of his own mischief to those who have not sinned, much more is it meet to keep one's self away from those without: (for if one ought not to spare a friend on account of such mischief arising from him, much less any others;) and under this impression, it was probable that they would separate themselves from the fornicators among the Greeks also, and the matter thus turning out impossible, they would have taken it more to heart: he used this mode of correction, saying, "I wrote unto you to have no company with fornicators, yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world:" using the word "altogether," as if it were an acknowledged thing. For that they might not think that he charged not this upon them as being rather imperfect, and should attempt to do it under the erroneous impression that they were perfect, he shews that this were even impossible to be done, though they wished it ever so much. For it would be necessary to seek another world. Wherefore he added, "For ye must needs then go out of the world." Seest thou that he is no hard master, and that in his legislation he constantly regards not only what may be done, but also what may be easily done. For how is it possible, says he, for a man having care of a house and children, and engaged in the affairs of the city, or who is an artisan or a soldier, (the greater part of mankind being Greeks,) to avoid the unclean who are to be found every where? For by "the fornicators of the world," he means those who are among the Greeks. "But now I write unto you, If any brother" be of this kind, "with such an one no not to eat." Here also he glances at others who were living in wickedness. But how can one "that is a brother" be an idolater? As was the case once in regard to the Samaritans who chose piety but by halves. And besides he is laying down his ground beforehand for the discourse concerning things offered in sacrifice to idols, which after this he intends to handle. "Or covetous." For with these also he enters into conflict. Wherefore he said also, "Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? Nay, ye yourselves do wrong and defraud." "Or a drunkard." For this also he lays to their charge further on; as when he says, "One is hungry and another is drunken:" and, "meats for the belly and the belly for meats." "Or a reviler, or an extortioner:" for these too he had rebuked before.

Note that none of this applies to relations with unbelievers.

Obviously if we are not to eat ordinary food with such people, we are not to admit them to the Lord’s table either.

You see, it was not only one fornicator, but others as well, and not just one vice, but various ones. But in what way can a brother also be an idolater? Just as the Samaritans were once only half-pious, so it happened with the Corinthians as well, that is, some of them still clung to idols. Beyond this, the apostle prepares to speak about those who ate food sacrificed to idols. He well said, "who is called a brother"; for anyone who is guilty of the sins enumerated above bears only the name of brother, but in reality is not a brother. The word ή πόρνος can be taken in the sense of a disjunctive conjunction (ή), as in the expressions that follow it, but it can also be taken as the verb "to remain" (ή), so that if anyone, being called a brother, remains (υπάρχη) a fornicator, and so on. "With such a person do not even eat together," so that he may recognize himself as defiled on account of sin and refrain from it.

Then when he says, But rather, he presents the true interpretation. First, he states his intention; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 12); thirdly, he draws the intended conclusion (v. 13b). First, therefore, he says: But rather I shall explain what I have written to you earlier not to associate with fornicators and other sinners, who bear the name of brother in the sense in which the Lord speaks, when he says in Matt (23:8): "You are all brothers." The Apostle does not say if any man is a brother, but if any man is called a brother, because by mortal sin a man departs from charity, which is the cause of spiritual brotherhood. Hence it says in Heb (13:1): "Let brotherly love continue." Therefore a man is called a brother on account of the true faith, even though he is not really a brother, if he lacks charity as a result of sin. Hence he adds: if he is guilty of fornication or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber—not even to eat with such a one. "If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting" (2 Jn 1:10). In other words: when I said that you should not keep company with sinners, I meant with believers who are called brothers and live among you. It should be noted that the Apostle mentions only mortal sins to show that a man should not be excommunicated except for mortal sin. However, there seems to be some question about one of these sins, namely, drunkenness, which does not always seem to be a mortal sin. For Augustine says in a sermon on purgatory that drunkenness, unless it is frequent, is not a mortal sin. I believe the reason for this is that drunkenness is a mortal sin in general. For it seems to be contrary to charity that for the pleasure of wine a man is willing to lose the use of reason and expose himself to the danger of committing many other sins. Yet it might happen that drunkenness is not a mortal sin, because the strength of the wine or one's own physical weakness were not known. However, this excuse loses its validity, when drunkenness is frequent. Hence it is significant that the Apostle does not say "a drinker" but "a drunkard." It is noteworthy that to the list given earlier he added two sins, namely, the reviler and the drunkard. Drunkenness is among the class of sins committed against oneself, which includes not only lust but gluttony as well. Reviling is among the sins committed against one's neighbor, whom a man can harm not only by deed but also by word, by calling down evil upon him or by defaming him, which pertains to detraction, or by speaking evil to his face, which pertains to contumely. All this is included under the notion of reviler, as has been stated.

Account of the incestuous person, or of him who had married his father's wife, Co1 5:1. The apostle reproves the Corinthians for their carelessness in this matter, and orders them to excommunicate the transgressor, Co1 5:2-5. They are reprehended for their glorying, while such scandals were among them, Co1 5:6. They must purge out the old leaven, that they may properly celebrate the Christian passover, Co1 5:7-9. They must not associate with any who, professing the Christian religion, were guilty of any scandalous vice, and must put away from them every evil person, Co1 5:10-13.

But now I have written - I not only write this, but I add more: if any one who is called a brother, i.e. professes the Christian religion, be a fornicator, covetous, idolater, railer, drunkard, or extortioner, not even to eat with such - have no communion with such a one, in things either sacred or civil. You may transact your worldly concerns with a person that knows not God, and makes no profession of Christianity, whatever his moral character may be; but ye must not even thus far acknowledge a man professing Christianity, who is scandalous in his conduct. Let him have this extra mark of your abhorrence of all sin; and let the world see that the Church of God does not tolerate iniquity.

THE INCESTUOUS PERSON AT CORINTH: THE CORINTHIANS REPROVED FOR CONNIVANCE, AND WARNED TO PURGE OUT THE BAD LEAVEN. QUALIFICATION OF HIS FORMER COMMAND AS TO ASSOCIATION WITH SINNERS OF THE WORLD. (Co1 5:1-13) commonly--rather, "actually" [ALFORD]. Absolutely [BENGEL]. "It is reported," implies, that the Corinthians, though they "wrote" (Co1 7:1) to Paul on other points, gave him no information on those things which bore against themselves. These latter matters reached the apostle indirectly (Co1 1:11). so much as named--The oldest manuscripts and authorities omit "named": "Fornication of such a gross kind as (exists) not even among the heathen, so that one (of you) hath (in concubinage) his father's wife," that is, his stepmother, while his father is still alive (Co2 7:12; compare Lev 18:8). She was perhaps a heathen, for which reason he does not direct his rebuke against her (compare Co1 5:12-13). ALFORD thinks "have" means have in marriage: but the connection is called "fornication," and neither Christian nor Gentile law would have sanctioned such a marriage, however Corinth's notorious profligacy might wink at the concubinage.

But now--"Now" does not express time, but "the case being so," namely, that to avoid fornicators, &c., of the world, you would have to leave the world altogether, which would be absurd. So "now" is used in Heb 11:16. Thus we avoid making the apostle now retract a command which he had before given. I have written--that is, my meaning in the letter I wrote was "not to keep company," &c. a brother--contrasted with a "fornicator . . . of the world" (Co1 5:10). There is less danger in associating with open worldlings than with carnal professors. Here, as in Eph 5:3, Eph 5:5, "covetousness" is joined with "fornication": the common fount of both being "the fierce and ever fiercer longing of the creature, which has turned from God, to fill itself with the inferior objects of sense" [TRENCH, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament]. Hence "idolatry" is associated with them: and the covetous man is termed an "idolater" (Num 25:1-2). The Corinthians did not fall into open idolatry, but ate things offered to idols, so making a compromise with the heathen; just as they connived at fornication. Thus this verse prepares for the precepts in Co1 8:4, &c. Compare the similar case of fornication, combined with a similar idolatrous compromise, after the pattern of Israel with the Midianites (Rev 2:14). no not to eat--not to sit at the same table with such; whether at the love-feasts (agapÃ&brvbr) or in private intercourse, much more at the Lord's table: at the last, too often now the guests "are not as children in one family, but like a heterogeneous crowd of strangers in an inn" [BENGEL] (compare Gal 2:12; Jo2 1:10-11).