1 Corinthians 5:1
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
(1) It is reported commonly.—Better, There is absolutely said to be fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles. All the best MSS. omit the word “named.” The force of the statement is that the fornication was of such a kind (with a stepmother) as even the Gentile world, immoral as it was, regarded with disgust, and how infinitely worse, then, was it to find such tolerated amongst Christians, whose moral standard ought to be much higher.

One should have his father’s wife.—The word “have” here used always implies in the New Testament actual marriage. It is, therefore, probable that she had been divorced from his father. The word for “his father’s wife” is the Hebrew form of expression for stepmother. St. Chrysostom suggests “he said not his ‘stepmother,’ but ‘his father’s wife,’ so as to strike much more severely;” but probably St. Paul used the Hebrew phrase instead of the ordinary Greek word for “stepmother,” as it was in this phraseology that such a union was forbidden by the law of Moses (Leviticus 18:8).

1 Corinthians 5:1-2. It is, &c. — As if he had said, I have spoken of coming to you with a rod of correction, and it is too probable I maybe laid under a necessity of using it, though it be an unwilling necessity: for it is commonly reported that there is fornication practised among you — The original word, πορνεια, implies criminal conversation of any kind whatever; and is used by the LXX., and by the writers of the New Testament, in the latitude which its correspondent word hath in the Hebrew language, namely, to denote all the different kinds of uncleanness committed, whether between men and women, or between men, or with beasts. Accordingly it is used in the plural number, chap. 1 Corinthians 7:2. Here the word signifies incest joined with adultery, the woman’s husband being still living, as appears from 2 Corinthians 7:12. In the Old Testament whoredom sometimes signifies idolatry, because the union of the Israelites with God as their king being represented by God himself as a marriage, their giving themselves up to idolatry was considered as adultery. Such fornication as is not named among the Gentiles — Degenerate as they are, and abandoned to very vile practices; but is generally much condemned and detested. Accordingly many quotations brought by Whitby and others on this text, show that incest was held in high abomination among the heathen. And an enormity of this kind, as is well known, is called by Cicero, scelus incredibile et inauditum, an incredible and unheard-of wickedness. That one should have — Should cohabit with, or should marry, his father’s wife — His step-mother, and that during his father’s life. And ye, notwithstanding, are puffed up — Glory in your present condition, (1 Corinthians 4:8; 1 Corinthians 4:10,) and make an ostentation of your spiritual gifts to the neglect of your duty. And have not rather mourned — Given evident proofs of sorrow, such as one would have supposed a crime like this should have occasioned to the whole society, throwing every member of it into a state of humiliation and self-abasement; that he who hath done this deed might be taken from among you — Might, at that time of solemn mourning, have been expelled from your communion. From the Corinthians tolerating this crime, Macknight infers “that the guilty person was of some note among them; perhaps one of the teachers of the faction, who, being greatly admired for his personal qualifications, had escaped censure by arguing that such marriages were not forbidden by the gospel.” “It is remarkable, that neither here, nor in any of the passages where this affair is spoken of, is the woman mentioned, who was the other party in the crime. Probably she was a heathen, consequently not subject to the discipline of the church.”5:1-8 The apostle notices a flagrant abuse, winked at by the Corinthians. Party spirit, and a false notion of Christian liberty, seem to have saved the offender from censure. Grievous indeed is it that crimes should sometimes be committed by professors of the gospel, of which even heathens would be ashamed. Spiritual pride and false doctrines tend to bring in, and to spread such scandals. How dreadful the effects of sin! The devil reigns where Christ does not. And a man is in his kingdom, and under his power, when not in Christ. The bad example of a man of influence is very mischievous; it spreads far and wide. Corrupt principles and examples, if not corrected, would hurt the whole church. Believers must have new hearts, and lead new lives. Their common conversation and religious deeds must be holy. So far is the sacrifice of Christ our Passover for us, from rendering personal and public holiness unnecessary, that it furnishes powerful reasons and motives for it. Without holiness we can neither live by faith in him, nor join in his ordinances with comfort and profit.It is reported - Greek It is heard. There is a rumor. That rumor had been brought to Paul, probably by the members of the family of Chloe, 1 Corinthians 1:11.

Commonly - Ὅλως Holōs. Everywhere. It is a matter of common fame. It is so public that it cannot be concealed; and so certain that it cannot be denied. This was all offence, he informs us, which even the pagan would not justify or tolerate; and, therefore, the report had spread not only in the churches, but even among the pagan, to the great scandal of religion - When a report obtains such a circulation, it is certainly time to investigate it, and to correct the evil.

That there is fornication - See the note at Acts 15:20. The word is here used to denote incest, because the apostle immediately explains the nature of the offence.

And such fornication ... - An offence that is not tolerated or known among the pagan. This greatly aggravated the offence, that in a Christian church a crime should be tolerated among its members which even gross pagans would regard with abhorrence. That this offence was regarded with abhorrence by even the pagans has been abundantly proved by quotations from classic writers. See Wetstein, Bloomfield, and Whitby. Cicero says of the offence, expressly, that "it was an incredible and unheard of crime." Pro Cluen. 5. 6 - When Paul says that it was not "so much as named among the Gentiles," he doubtless uses the word (ὀνομάζεται onomazetai) in the sense of "named with approbation, tolerated," or "allowed." The crime was known in a few instances, but chiefly of those who were princes and rulers; but it was no where regarded with approbation, but was always treated as abominable wickedness. All that the connection requires us to understand by the word "named" here is, that it was not tolerated or allowed; it was treated with abhorrence, and it was therefore, more scandalous that it was allowed in a Christian church - Whitby supposes that this offence that was tolerated in the church at Corinth gave rise to the scandals that were circulated among the pagan respecting the early Christians, that they allowed of licentious contact among the members of their churches. This reproach was circulated extensively among the pagan, and the primitive Christians were at much pains to refute it.

That one should have - Probably as his wife; or it may mean simply that he had criminal contact with her. Perhaps some man had parted with his wife, on some account, and his son had married her, or maintained her for criminal contact. It is evident from 2 Corinthians 7:12, that the person who had suffered the wrong, as well as he who had done it, was still alive - Whether this was marriage or concubinage, has been disputed by commentators, and it is not possible, perhaps, to determine. See the subject discussed in Bloomfield.


1Co 5:1-13. 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.

1. commonly—rather, "actually" [Alford]. Absolutely [Bengel]. "It is reported," implies, that the Corinthians, though they "wrote" (1Co 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 (1Co 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 (2Co 7:12; compare Le 18:8). She was perhaps a heathen, for which reason he does not direct his rebuke against her (compare 1Co 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.1 Corinthians 5:1,2 Paul reproveth a scandalous incest committed and

protected from censure in the church at Corinth,

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and by his authority in Christ excommunicateth the


1 Corinthians 5:6-8 The necessity of purging out the old leaven.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Christians guilty of notorious crimes are not to be

consorted with.

The apostle here giveth a reason of the question which he propounded in the former chapter, whether they would be willing that, when he came to them, he should come unto them with a rod? Because such horrid wickedness was committed amongst them, as he, being an apostle to whom Christ had intrusted the government of his church, could not pass over without correction: he instanceth here in one, which he calleth

fornication; by which word is often in Scripture to be understood all species of uncleanness, though, in strict speaking, we by fornication understand the uncleanness of a single person, as by adultery we understand the uncleanness of a person married, and by incest the uncleanness of a person with some near relation, as a mother, a sister: in strict speaking, the sin here reflected on was incest; but the Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures.

Such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles: this sin he aggravates by saying, that the Gentiles by the light of nature discerned and declined such an abomination; by whom is not to be understood the more brutish part, but the more civilized part of the heathen, such as the Romans, &c. were.

That one should have his father’s wife: by having his father’s wife, in this place, is not to be understood, the marrying of his father’s wife, his father being dead; but the using of his father’s wife as his wife while his father was yet alive, (as some judicious interpreters think), because hardly any nation would have endured a son openly to have married the widow of his father. And in 2 Corinthians 7:12, there is mention made not only of one that had done, but of another that had suffered the wrong; which latter must be the father himself: so as there was both incest and whoredom in this fact.

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, Leviticus 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 2 Corinthians 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.

It is {1} reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

(1) They are greatly to be reprehended who by allowing wickedness, set forth the Church of God to be mocked and scorned by infidels.

1 Corinthians 5:1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note of transition, but after the closing words of 1 Corinthians 4:21 with all the more telling force, the discourse falls with severity at once upon another deep-seated evil in the church.

ὅλως] means simply in general, in universum, as in 1 Corinthians 6:7, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Matthew 5:34, and in Greek writers; it belongs to ἀκούεται, so that to the general expression ὅλως ἀκούεται πορν. there corresponds the particular καὶ τοιαύτη πορν., sc[748] ἀκούεται. The latter, however, is something worse than the former, hence the ΚΑΊ is intensive (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147): One hears generally (speaking broadly) of fornication among you, and even of such fornication one hears among you, as is not found among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate that it is no dubius rumor, sed res manifesta; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, al[749]) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or omnino (Vulgate), but neither ubique nor certainly. Rückert thinks that it assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be supplied after 1 Corinthians 4:21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity; and that Paul would more fittingly have written γοῦν. This is arbitrary, and even in point of logic doubly incorrect, because ὍΛΩς here introduces the report of a quite special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization; and because, if the restrictive γοῦν would have been better in this passage, Paul in using the generalizing ὅλως must have expressed himself illogically.

ἐν ὑμῖν] not: as occurring among you (comp Ewald), for it is a defining statement which belongs to ἈΚΟΎΕΤΑΙ; but: one hears talk among you of fornication, one comes to hear of it in your community. Paul expresses the state of things as it was perhaps made known to him by Chloe’s people (1 Corinthians 1:11) or others who came from Corinth, and spoke to him in some such way as this: In the Corinthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc.; such things as these one is forced to hear of there!

ἐν τοῖς ἔθν.] ἈΕῚ ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ἘΘΝΙΚῶΝ ὈΝΕΙΔΊΖΕΙ ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΟῖς, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among the Jews: Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301; Michaelis, Mos. R. II. p. 206; Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 766 f. The instances of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Obss. I. p. 184) were exceptions contrary to law (see Elsner, p. 90; Wetstein and Pott in loc[751]), and abhorred (Wetstein, l.c[752]).

γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρός] i.e. אֵשֶׁת אָב, stepmother, Leviticus 18:8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was, no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Leviticus 18:8 that Paul chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation ΜΗΤΡΥΙΆ), ὭΣΤΕ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΧΑΛΕΠΏΤΕΡΟΝ ΠΛῆΞΑΙ, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual arrangement of the words, too, ΓΥΝΑῖΚΆ ΤΙΝΑ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς, puts an emphasis of ignominy upon ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ.

] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Rückert, Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage (Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Corinthians 7:12, Maier) or in concubinage (Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact that ἜΧΩ is never used in the N. T. in such sense as that of the well-known ἜΧΩ ΛΑΐΔΑ (Diog. Laert. ii. 75; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or “quis heri Chrysidem habuit?” (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage[753] Matthew 14:4; Matthew 22:28; Mark 6:18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:29. Comp 1Ma 11:9; Hom. Od. iv. 569; Herod. iii. 31; Thuc. ii. 29. 1; Xen. Cyr. i. 5. 4; Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef.; Maetzn. a[755] Lycurg. p. 121); but further, and more especially, the use of the past tenses ποιήσας, 1 Corinthians 5:2, and κατεργασάμενον, 1 Corinthians 5:3, to designate the matter, which convey not the conception of illicit intercourse, but that of an incestuous marriage having actually taken place. Paul ranks this case under the head of πορνεία (see on Matthew 5:32); because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further intends to designate definitely by κ. τοιαύτη πορν. κ.τ.λ[756] the particular occurrence which is included under this general category. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9, should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that πορνεία proves the case not to have been one of adultery. The objection, again, that Paul does not insist upon a divorce, is of no weight; for he does insist upon excommunication, and, after that had taken place, the criminal marriage—if the offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of his own accord—would no longer concern the Christians (see 1 Corinthians 5:12-13). Another objection: How could the magistrates have tolerated such a marriage? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and morally corrupt city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, especially on the point of the ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ (see Introd. § 1); and partly by remembering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or—which is more likely—a heathen, having turned Christian, might put forward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jebhamoth, f. 982; Michaelis, Einl. § 178, p. 1221; Lübkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this chapter.

As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian, else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Her former husband was still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him), and was probably a Christian; 2 Corinthians 7:12.

[748] c. scilicet.

[749] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[751] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[752] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[753] Even in John 4:18, where, however, the word must be kept in the peculiar significant mode of expression which belongs to the passage, as applied to an irregular, not real or legal marriage.

[755] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[756] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 5:1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in the church.1 Corinthians 5:1-8. § 15. THE CASE OF INCEST. About the party-strifes at Cor[801] P. has been informed by the members of a particular family (1 Corinthians 1:11); the monstrous case of incest, to which he turns abruptly and without any preface (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10), is notorious.

[801] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.Ch. 1 Corinthians 5:1-8. The case of the incestuous person

1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you] This explains the mention of the ‘rod’ in the last verse.

and such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles] Two considerations of some importance, bearing on Church history, are suggested by this passage. The first is, that we must dismiss the idea, that the Christian Church at the beginning of its career was a pattern of Christian perfection. The Corinthian community, as described here and in chap. 1 Corinthians 11:21, was lamentably ignorant of the first principles of Christian morality and Christian decency, and we see how the Apostles had to begin by laying the very foundations of a system of morals among their depraved heathen converts. It is probable that nowhere, save in the earlier years of the Church at Jerusalem, was there any body of Christians which was not very far from realizing the Christian ideal, and which was not continually in need of the most careful supervision. The second point is that St Paul’s idea of discipline seems to have differed greatly from the principles which were creeping into the Church at the end of the second century. See 1 Corinthians 5:5, and compare it with 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, which seems plainly to refer to the same person. In spite of the gravity of the crime—it would seem (2 Corinthians 7:12) that it was committed while the father was alive—we find here nothing of the long, in some instances life-long, penance which had become the rule of the Church for grave offences before the end of the third century. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remark that by the words ‘father’s wife,’ stepmother is meant. But the language of the Apostle seems to imply that she had been divorced by the father and married to the son, a proceeding which the shameful laxity of Corinthian society rendered possible. See note on ch. 1 Corinthians 7:10. Estius, however, thinks that the son was living publicly with his father’s wife, as though she were his own.1 Corinthians 5:1. Ὅλως, absolutely [Engl. Vers., commonly]) Paul has nowhere else used this particle, but it is found thrice in this epistle (here, and in 1 Corinthians 6:7, and 1 Corinthians 15:29), as well fitted to express his thoughts, and in these and in all other places, the particle, ὅλως, omnino, is either put in a negative sentence, or it by implication contradicts a negative sentence: So Chrys. Homil. 5, c. Anom., Nevertheless, although man differs little from an angel, ἐπειδὴ ὍΛΩΣ ἐστί τι μεσον, since nevertheless there is some difference between them, we do not accurately know, what angels are: so in this passage, no fornication, ὅλως, at all should be reported among you; nevertheless it is, ὅλως, absolutely reported. The same principle applies to the particle, τὴν ἀρχὴν, absolutely.—ἐν ὑμῖν, concerning you [Engl. Vers. among]) in your name [case].—πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία, fornication and such fornication) An important repetition; by which the Corinthians might be more affected.—οὐδὲ, not even) It was a crime not named even among the Gentiles, with the exception of a few monsters; ὥστε is the Protherapeia[37] of the following clause. The apostle shows, that such infamous conduct was held in abhorrence even by the Gentiles.—ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ, wife) She was no doubt a heathen; therefore he does not direct his rebuke against her, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. The father, we may suppose, was dead.—ἔχειν, should have) by a single act, or by habitual intercourse, 1 Corinthians 5:2-3.

[37] See App. Anticipatory mitigation of what follows.Verses 1-8. - Excommunication of an incestuous offender. Verse 1. - It is reported. The abruptness with which the subject is introduced shows the intensity of St. Paul's feelings, and his indignation that he should have been left to hear of this crime by common report. The news had come to him "from those of Chloe's household." But St. Paul was not acting on mere "report." The Greek phrase implies, "It is notorious that there is uncleanness among you." St. Paul must have felt it to be a bad feature in the character of the Corinthian Church that they had not mentioned this gross scandal in their letter. Commonly; rather, actually or absolutely; Elsewhere in the New Testament the worn only occurs in Matthew 5:24; 1 Corinthians 6:7; 1 Corinthians 15:29. Tertullian renders it "in totum." St. Paul has no need in this instance to name his informants. Every one knew of this scandal. Fornication; a general word for all kinds of impurity. And. The word involves an indignant climax, "Yes, and uncleanness of such a kind that," etc. Is not so much as named. The true reading is, does not even exist. This form of incest was, indeed, "named" among the Gentiles, for it forms the basis of the story of Hippolytus, the scene of which was in the neighbourhood of Corinth; but the feelings even of pagans were so shocked by it that Cicero alludes to such a crime in the words, "Oh, incredible wickedness, and except in this woman's case - unheard of in all experience!" ('Pro Cluent.,' 5). At this very epoch Nero deepened the general execration against himself by the generally accepted suspicion that he had been guilty of a yet more flagrant crime. Should have; rather, that a certain person has his father's wife. Apparently this was some nominal Christian, who was living in open sin with his stepmother, and thereby braving the curse of Leviticus 18:17; Deuteronomy 27:20. We gather from 2 Corinthians 7:12 that the father was living, and had also joined the Christian community. From the complete silence as to the crime of the woman, it must be inferred that she was a heathen. Whether she had been divorced or not does not appear, nor whether the offender was nominally married to her or not. His father's wife. He might have used the one Greek word for stepmother (μητρυιά), but the periphrasis might remind some of the heinousness of the sin, and of Leviticus 18:8. Commonly (ὅλως)

Better, absolutely or actually, as Rev.

Should have

Opinions are divided as to whether the relation was that of marriage or concubinage. The former is urged on the ground that ἔχειν to have is commonly used in the New Testament of marriage; and that the aorist participles ποιήσας (so Tex. Rec.) had done, and κατεργασαμενον hath wrought, imply that an incestuous marriage had already taken place. It is urged, on the other hand, that ἔχειν to have is used of concubinage, John 4:18; but it takes its meaning there from the sense of marriage in the preceding clause, and is really a kind of play on the word. "He who now stands for thy husband is not thy husband." The indications seem to be in favor of marriage. Notwithstanding the facilities for divorce afforded by the Roman law, and the loose morals of the Corinthians, for a man to marry his stepmother was regarded as a scandal.

1 Corinthians 5:1 Interlinear
1 Corinthians 5:1 Parallel Texts

1 Corinthians 5:1 NIV
1 Corinthians 5:1 NLT
1 Corinthians 5:1 ESV
1 Corinthians 5:1 NASB
1 Corinthians 5:1 KJV

1 Corinthians 5:1 Bible Apps
1 Corinthians 5:1 Parallel
1 Corinthians 5:1 Biblia Paralela
1 Corinthians 5:1 Chinese Bible
1 Corinthians 5:1 French Bible
1 Corinthians 5:1 German Bible

Bible Hub

1 Corinthians 4:21
Top of Page
Top of Page