1 Corinzi 5:1 Commento

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).

Here the apostle states the case; and, I. Lets them know what was the common or general report concerning them, that one of their community was guilty of fornication, Co1 5:1. It was told in all places, to their dishonour, and the reproach of Christians. And it was the more reproachful because it could not be denied. Note, The heinous sins of professed Christians are quickly noted and noised abroad. We should walk circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice. This was not a common instance of fornication, but such as was not so much as named among the Gentiles, that a man should have his father's wife - either marry her while his father was alive, or keep her as his concubine, either when he was dead or while he was alive. In either of these cases, his criminal conversation with her might be called fornication; but had his father been dead, and he, after his decease, married to her, it had been incest still, but neither fornication nor adultery in the strictest sense. But to marry her, or keep her as a concubine, while his father was alive, though he had repudiated her, or she had deserted him, whether she were his own mother or not, was incestuous fornication: Scelus incredibile (as Cicero calls it), et prater unum in omni vit inauditum (Orat. pro Cluent.), when a woman had caused her daughter to be put away, and was married to her husband. Incredible wickedness! says the orator; such I never heard of in all my life besides. Not that there were no such instances of incestuous marriages among the heathens; but, whenever they happened, they gave a shock to every man of virtue and probity among them. They could not think of them without horror, nor mention them without dislike and detestation. Yet such a horrible wickedness was committed by one in the church of Corinth, and, as is probable, a leader of one of the factions among them, a principal man. Note, The best churches are, in this state of imperfection, liable to very great corruptions. Is it any wonder when so horrible a practice was tolerated in an apostolical church, a church planted by the great apostle of the Gentiles? II. He greatly blames them for their own conduct hereupon: They were puffed up (Co1 5:2), they gloried, 1. Perhaps on account of this very scandalous person. He might be a man of great eloquence, of deep science, and for this reason very greatly esteemed, and followed, and cried up, by many among them. They were proud that they had such a leader. Instead of mourning for his fall, and their own reproach upon his account, and renouncing him and removing him from the society, they continued to applaud him and pride themselves in him. Note, Pride or self-esteem often lies at the bottom of our immoderate esteem of others, and this makes us as blind to their faults as to our own. It is true humility that will bring a man to a sight and acknowledgement of his errors. The proud man either wholly overlooks or artfully disguises his faults, or endeavours to transform his blemishes into beauties. Those of the Corinthians that were admirers of the incestuous person's gifts could overlook or extenuate his horrid practices. Or else, 2. It may intimate to us that some of the opposite party were puffed up. They were proud of their own standing, and trampled upon him that fell. Note, It is a very wicked thing to glory over the miscarriages and sins of others. We should lay them to heart, and mourn for them, not be puffed up with them. Probably this was one effect of the divisions among them. The opposite party made their advantage of this scandalous lapse, and were glad of the opportunity. Note, It is a sad consequence of divisions among Christians that it makes them apt to rejoice in iniquity. The sins of others should be our sorrow. Nay, churches should mourn for the scandalous behaviour of particular members, and, if they be incorrigible, should remove them. He that had done this wicked deed should have been taken away from among them. III. We have the apostle's direction to them how they should now proceed with this scandalous sinner. He would have him excommunicated and delivered to Satan (Co1 5:3-5); as absent in body, yet present in spirit, he had judged already as if he had been present; that is, he had, by revelation and the miraculous gift of discerning vouchsafed him by the Spirit, as perfect a knowledge of the case, and had hereupon come to the following determination, not without special authority from the Holy Spirit. He says this to let them know that, though he was at a distance, he did not pass an unrighteous sentence, nor judge without having as full cognizance of the case as if he had been on the spot. Note, Those who would appear righteous judges to the world will take care to inform them that they do not pass sentence without full proof and evidence. The apostle adds, him who hath so done this deed. The fact was not only heinously evil in itself, and horrible to the heathens, but there were some particular circumstances that greatly aggravated the offence. He had so committed the evil as to heighten the guilt by the manner of doing it. Perhaps he was a minister, a teacher, or a principal man among them. By this means the church and their profession were more reproached. Note, In dealing with scandalous sinners, not only are they to be charged with the fact, but the aggravating circumstances of it. Paul had judged that he should be delivered to Satan (Co1 5:5), and this was to be done in the name of Christ, with the power of Christ, and in a full assembly, where the apostle would be also present in spirit, or by his spiritual gift of discerning at a distance. Some think that this is to be understood of a mere ordinary excommunication, and that delivering him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh is only meant of disowning him, and casting him out of the church, that by this means he might be brought to repentance, and his flesh might be mortified. Christ and Satan divide the world: and those that live in sin, when they profess relation to Christ, belong to another master, and by excommunication should be delivered up to him; and this in the name of Christ. Note, Church-censures are Christ's ordinances, and should be dispensed in his name. It was to be done also when they were gathered together, in full assembly. The more public the more solemn, and the more solemn the more likely to have a good effect on the offender. Note, Church-censures on notorious and incorrigible sinners should be passed with great solemnity. Those who sin in this manner are to be rebuked before all, that all may fear, Ti1 5:20. Others think the apostle is not to be understood of mere excommunication, but of a miraculous power or authority they had of delivering a scandalous sinner into the power of Satan, to have bodily diseases inflicted, and to be tormented by him with bodily pains, which is the meaning of the destruction of the flesh. In this sense the destruction of the flesh has been a happy occasion of the salvation of the spirit. It is probable that this was a mixed case. It was an extraordinary instance: and the church was to proceed against him by just censure; the apostle, when they did so, put forth an act of extraordinary power, and gave him up to Satan, nor for his destruction, but for his deliverance, at least for the destruction of the flesh, that the soul might be saved. Note, The great end of church-censures is the good of those who fall under them, their spiritual and eternal good. It is that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, Co1 5:5. Yet it is not merely a regard to their benefit that is to be had in proceeding against them. For, IV. He hints the danger of contagion from this example: Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The bad example of a man in rank and reputation is very mischievous, spreads the contagion far and wide. It did so, probably, in this very church and case: see Co2 12:21. They could not be ignorant of this. The experience of the whole world was for it; one scabbed sheep infects a whole flock. A little heaven will quickly spread the ferment through a great lump. Note, Concern for their purity and preservation should engage Christian churches to remove gross and scandalous sinners.

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.

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you,.... The apostle having reproved the Corinthians for their schisms and divisions about their ministers, proceeds to charge them with immoralities committed among them, and which were connived at, and took no notice of by them; and particularly a very notorious one, which he here mentions with its aggravated circumstances. It was done among them; not only by one of their citizens, nor merely by one of their hearers, but by one of their members, and so was cognizable by them as a church; for though they had nothing to do with them that were without, yet they were concerned with them that were within: this was a public offence; it was known by everyone, and it was in everybody's mouth; it was heard in all companies; it was "commonly", "universally" talked of, and reported; it was generally known at Corinth, and in all Achaia, so that the church could not plead ignorance, nor could they be excused from blame in not as publicly declaring their abhorrence of the fact, as it was committed, which was fornication: fornication, "generally" taken, might be committed among them in all the branches of it, as that may include simple fornication, adultery, incest, and all acts of uncleanness; wherefore the apostle proceeds to describe that particular instance of fornication, that one of their members was guilty of: and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife; not but that such unnatural copulations were practised, as among the Indians, Moors, Bactrians, Ethiopians, Medes, and Persians, as reported by sundry writers (y); and among the Arabians, before prohibited by Mahomet (z); but then such marriages and mixtures were not allowed of among the more civil and cultivated nations, as the Grecians and Romans, and never mentioned but with detestation and abhorrence: and if this man was a Jew, it was an aggravation of his sin, that he should be guilty of a crime decried by the Gentiles, as well as it was a violation of a known law of God given to the Jews, Lev 18:7 and, according to the Jewish writers (a), such a man was doubly guilty: their canon is, "ba tva le abh he that lies with his father's wife is guilty, on account of her being his father's wife, and on account of her being another man's wife, whether in his father's life time, or after his death, and whether espoused or married;'' and such an one was to be stoned. Of this kind was this man's crime; he had his father's wife, not his own mother, but his stepmother; for there is a distinction between a mother and a father's wife, as in the above canon. "These are to be stoned, he that lies with his mother, or with his father's wife.'' Whether this man had married his father's wife, or kept her as his concubine, continuing in an incestuous cohabitation with her, is not certain, and whether his father was dead or living; which latter seems to be the case from Co2 7:12 his iniquity was abominable and intolerable, and by no means to be winked at in church of Christ. (y) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 1. c. 24. Curtius, l. 8. c. 2. Philo, de special. leg. p. 77. 8. Tertul. Apolog. c. 9. Min. Foelix, p. 34. Clement. Alex. Paedagog. p. 109. Origen. contr. Cels. l. 6. p. 331. Hieron. adv. Jovin. l. 2. fol. 26. (z) Koran, c. 4. Vid. Pocock. spec, Arab. Hist p. 337, 338. (a) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 4.

Of course, a man of the noble courage of our apostle (to say nothing of the Holy Ghost) was afraid, when writing to the children whom he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the world; for against Him he could not possibly seem to have a word to say, except only in a straightforward manner! I quite admit, that, according to the Creator's law, the man was an offender" who had his father's wife." He followed, no doubt, the principles of natural and public law.

Thus He has not prohibited judging, but taught (how to do it). Whence the apostle withal judges, and that in a case of fornication, that "such a man must be surrendered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh; " chiding them likewise because "brethren" were not "judged at the bar of the saints: " for he goes on and says, "To what (purpose is it) for me to judge those who are without? ""But you remit, in order that remission may be granted you by God.

We learn from this that there are different kinds of immorality, some of which are more serious than others. When God judges it, he will take extenuating factors into account and vary the punishment accordingly. In this case, Paul is teaching us that even when there has been a legal marriage ceremony, if it goes against the law of God, it is immoral and will be condemned accordingly.

When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, "For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you." But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, "Why did such an one commit fornication?" but, "It is reported that there is fornication among you;" that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. "For no one," saith he, "will state it thus, 'such an one hath committed fornication,' but, 'in the Church of Corinthians that sin hath been committed.'" And he said not, "Fornication is perpetrated," but, "Is reported,-such as is not even named among the Gentiles." For so continually he makes the Gentiles a topic of reproach to the believers. Thus writing to the Thessalonians, he said, "Let every one possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification, not in the passion of lust, even as the rest of the Gentiles." And to the Colossians and Ephesians, "That you should no longer walk, as the other Gentiles walk." Now if their committing the same sins was unpardonable, when they even outdid the Gentiles, what place can we find for them? tell me: "inasmuch as among the Gentiles," so he speaks, "not only they dare no such thing, but they do not even give it a name. Do you see to what point he aggravated his charge? For when they are convicted of inventing such modes of uncleanness as the unbelievers, so far from venturing on them, do not even know of, the sin must be exceeding great, beyond all words. And the clause, "among you," is spoken also emphatically; that is, "Among you, the faithful, who have been favored with so high mysteries, the partakers of secrets, the guests invited to heaven." Dost thou mark with what indignant feeling his words overflow? with what anger against all? For had it not been for the great wrath of which he was full, had he not been setting himself against them all, he would have spoken thus: "Having heard that such and such a person hath committed fornication, I charge you to punish him." But as it is he doth not so; he rather challenges all at once. And indeed, if they had written first, this is what he probably would have said. Since however so far from writing, they had even thrown the fault into the shade, on this account he orders his discourse more vehemently. Wherefore said he not, "That he should abuse his father's wife?" The extreme foulness of the deed caused him to shrink. He hurries by it accordingly, with a sort of scrupulousness as though it had been explicitly mentioned before. And hereby again he aggravates the charge, implying that such things are ventured on among them as even to speak plainly of was intolerable for Paul. Wherefore also, as he goes on, he uses the same mode of speech, saying, "Him who hath so done this thing:" and is again ashamed and blushes to speak out; which also we are wont to do in regard of matters extremely disgraceful. And he said not, "his step-mother," but, "his father's wife;" so as to strike much more severely. For when the mere terms are sufficient to convey the charge, he proceeds with them simply, adding nothing.

This person was clearly deserving of death for his crime, but those who supported him were not innocent either.

He accuses everyone in general, so that they would not give themselves over to carelessness, considering themselves free from this sin, but on the contrary, would endeavor to correct it, as a common disgrace. And he did not say: is shamelessly committed, but: "it is actually reported." If it is forbidden even to allow such a crime to reach one's hearing, is it not much more shameless to commit it? All the more "among you," who have been deemed worthy of the spiritual mysteries; and further, intensifying the accusation, he says: "such as is not even named among the Gentiles," he did not say: occurs, but: "is not even named." "That one should have his father's wife." He did not say: stepmother, but "his father's wife," so that by the reminder of the father he might make the blow more forceful. Furthermore, being ashamed to utter the name of adultery, he used the more decent expression "to have."

After discussing matters which pertain to the sacrament of baptism, the Apostle begins to consider matters which pertain to matrimony. First, he attacks a sin contrary to matrimony, namely, fornication; secondly, he discusses matrimony itself (c. 7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the crime; secondly, he censures it (v. 6). As to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the crime of a certain fornicator; secondly, the crime of those who condoned this sin (v. 2). In regard to the first he mentions three things which pertain to the gravity of the crime. First, he shows that the sin is notorious, saying: It was not without reason that I asked whether you wish me to come to you with the rod. For there is one among you deserving the rod of discipline, because it is actually reported, i.e., publicly known, that there is immorality among you, against which it is said: "Fornication must not even be named among you" (Eph 5:3); "They proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it" (Is 3:9). Secondly, he amplifies the sin by a comparison when he says: and of a kind that is not found or regarded as lawful, even among pagans. For example, fornication was not considered a sin among the pagans; hence to rid them of this error the apostles (Ac 15:29) imposed on pagans converted to the faith the obligation to abstain from fornication. Yet it was a form of fornication regarded as unlawful even among pagans; hence he says: for a man is living with his father's wife: "Unstable as water, you shall not have pre-eminence because you went up to your father's bed and defiled his couch" (Gen 49:4). This was monstrous even among the pagans, being contrary to natural reason. For the laws of every civilization dictated that the natural reverence owed to parents prevents sons and daughters from marrying their father or mother. This is even implied in Gen (2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother (in contracting matrimony) and shall cleave to his wife." Furthermore, since it goes on to say that the man and woman "will be two in one flesh," the wife of the father is excluded from marrying; just as the person of the father or mother, for it says in Lev (18:8): "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; for it is the nakedness of the father."

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.

There is fornication among you - The word πορνεια, which we translate fornication in this place, must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity; for, that the Corinthians were notoriously guilty of every species of irregularity and debauch, we have already seen; and it is not likely that in speaking on this subject, in reference to a people so very notorious, he would refer to only one species of impurity, and that not the most flagitious. That one should have his father's wife - Commentators and critics have found great difficulties in this statement. One part of the case is sufficiently clear, that a man who professed Christianity had illegal connections with his father's wife; but the principal question is, was his father alive or dead? Most think that the father was alive, and imagine that to this the apostle refers, Co2 7:12, where, speaking of the person who did the wrong, he introduces also him who had suffered the wrong; which must mean the father and the father then alive. After all that has been said on this subject, I think it most natural to conclude that the person in question had married the wife of his deceased father, not his own mother, but stepmother, then a widow. This was a crime which the text says was not so much as named among the Gentiles; the apostle must only mean that it was not accredited by them, for it certainly did often occur: but by their best writers who notice it, it was branded as superlatively infamous. Cicero styles it, scelus incredibile et inauditum, an incredible and unheard of wickedness; but it was heard of and practised; and there are several stories of this kind in heathen authors, but they reprobate not commend it. The word ονομαζεται, named, is wanting in almost every MS. and version of importance, and certainly makes no part of the text. The words should be read, and such fornication as is not amongst the Gentiles, i.e., not allowed. Some think that this woman might have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion from heathenism; and the rabbins taught that proselytism annulled all former relationship, and that a woman was at liberty in such a case to depart from an unbelieving husband, and to marry even with a believing son, i.e., of her husband by some former wife.

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.