5:1-13.] Concerning a gross case of incest which had arisen, and was harboured, among them (vv. 1-8): and qualification of a former command which he had given them respecting association with gross sinners (9-13). The subject of this chapter is bound on to the foregoing by the question of ch. 4:21: and it furnishes an instance of those things which required his apostolic discipline.

1.] ὅλως, actually, ‘omnino,’ see reff.: in negative sentences, ‘at all.’

ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμ. πορνεία] another way of saying ἀκούουσί τινες ἐν ὑμ. πόρνοι,—the character of πόρνος is borne (by some) among you,—fornication is borne as a character among you. From missing this sense of ἀκούομαι, Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to ὅλως, rendering it ‘commonly,’ to suit ἀκούεται, ‘is reported,’—(2) as to ἐν ὑμῖν, joining it with πορνεία, whereas it belongs to ἀκούεται,—(3) as to ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τ. ἔθν., see below.

καὶ τοιαύτ. π.] And fornication of such a sort (the καί rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of οὐ μόνον …‚ ἀλλὰ … before it; so Aristoph. Ran. 116, ὦ σχέτλιε, τολμήσεις γὰρ ἰέναι καὶ σύ γε; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a character) even among the heathen. The ὀνομάξεται of the rec. is a clumsy gloss, probably from Ephesians 5:3: the meaning being, that not even among the heathen does any one ἀκούει πόρνος in this sense, that it was a crime that they would not tolerate as a matter of public notoriety. So that one among yon has (as wife most probably, not merely as concubine: the word ἔχω in such cases universally in the N. T. signifying to possess in marriage: and Meyer remarks that ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο ποιήσας (ver. 2), and τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον (ver. 3) seem to point to a consummation of marriage, not to mere concubinage) his father’s wife (i.e. his step-mother, see Leviticus 18:8; οὐκ εἶπε μητρυιὰν ἀλλὰ γυναῖκα πατρός, ὥστε πολλῷ χαλεπώτερον πλῆξαι, Chrys. Hom. xv. p. 125).

The Commentators generally refer to Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, “Nubit genero socrus, nullis auspicibus, nullis auctoribus, funestis ominibus omnium omnibus. O mulieris scelus incredibile, et præter hanc unam, in omni vita inauditum,” &c.

It may seem astonishing that the authorities in the Corinthian church should have allowed such a case to escape them, or if known, should have tolerated it. Perhaps the universal laxity of morals at Corinth may have weakened the severity even of the Christian elders: perhaps, as has often been suggested, the offender, if a Jewish convert, might defend his conduct by the Rabbinical maxim that in the case of a proselyte, the forbidden degrees were annulled, a new birth having been undergone by him (see Maimon. in Wetst.). This latter however is rendered improbable by the fact that the Apostle says nothing of the woman, which he would have done had she been a Christian:—and that Jewish maxim was taxed with the condition, that a proselyte might marry any of his or her former relatives, ‘modo ad Judaicam religionem transierint.’ The father was living, and is described in 2Corinthians 7:12, as ὁ ἀδικηθείς;—and from the Apostle saying there that he did not write on his account, he was probably a Christian.

2.] καί often introduces a question, especially one by which something inconsistent or preposterous is brought out,—see reff.: and note on 2Corinthians 2:2.

πεφυς. ἐστέ] Not, which would be absurd,—at the occurrence of this crime, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ ἁμαρτήματι· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀλογίας. Chrys.: neither, as he proceeds,—ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ἐκείνου, imagining the offender to have been some party teacher: so also Theophyl.:—but as before, with a notion of their own wisdom and spiritual perfection: the being puffed up is only cum hoc, not propter hoc.

ἐπενθήσατε] And did ye not rather mourn (viz. when the crime became first known to you), in order that (your mourning would be because of the existence of the evil, i.e. with a view to its removal) he who did this deed (the past part. ποιήσας is itself used from the past point of time indicated by ἐπενθήσατε, and must therefore be expressed by the past) might (may) be removed from among you (viz. by your casting him out from your society)?

3-5.] justifies the expression ἵνα ἀρθῇ just used, by declaring the judgment which the Apostle, although absent, had already passed on the offender.

3.] ἐγὼ μὲν γάρ, I for my part … ‘ego certe:’ so Aristoph. Plut. 355, μὰ Δίʼ, ἐγὼ μὲν οὔ: see Hartung, Partikellchre, ii. 413.

ὡς παρών, as if really present, not, as being present in spirit.

τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατ.] The object is put foremost for emphasis’ sake, and after several intervening clauses, taken up again with τὸν τοιοῦτον, ver. 5.

οὕτως, Meyer thinks, alludes to some peculiarly offensive method in which he had brought about the marriage, which was known to the Corinthians, but unknown to us. Olsh. understands it, ‘under such circumstances,’ ‘being such as he is, a member of Christ’s body.’ But this, being before patent, would hardly be thus emphatically denoted. Perhaps after all, τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον refers to πορνεία generally, οὕτως to τοιαύτη πορνεία, ver. 1.

4.] We may arrange this sentence in four different ways: (1) ἐν τῷ ὀν. may belong to συναχθέντων, and σὺν τῇ δυν. to παραδοῦναι,—so Beza, Calov., Billroth, Olsh., al.: (2) both ἐν τῷ ὀν. and σὺν τῇ δυν. may belong to συναχθέντων,—so Chrys., Theophyl. (altern.), Calvin (quoting for σὺν τῇ δυν. Matthew 18:20), Grot., Rückert: (3) both may belong to παραδοῦναι,—so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4) ἐν τῷ ὀν. belongs to παραδοῦναι, and σὺν τῇ δυν. to συναχθέντων,—so Luther, Castal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al. And this, I am persuaded, is the right arrangement. For according to (2) and (3), the balance of the sentence would be destroyed, no adjunct of authority being given to one member of it, and both to the other: and (1) is hardly consistent with the arrangement of the clauses, the parenthetical portion beginning far more naturally with the participle than with ἐν τῷ ὀν.,—not to mention that the common formula of the Apostles’ speaking authoritatively, is ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χρ. or the like: see Acts 3:16; Acts 16:18; 2Thessalonians 3:6. The sentence then will stand:—(I have decreed),—in the name of our Lord Jesus (when ye have been assembled together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus), (i.e. ‘I myself, in spirit, endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic power:’ σὺν τῇ δυν. belongs to τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύμ., and is not, as in Chrys.,—see above—merely an element in the assembly) to deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. What does this sentence import? Not, mere excommunication, though it is doubtless included. It was a delegation to the Corinthian church of a special power, reserved to the Apostles themselves, of inflicting corporeal death or disease as a punishment for sin. Of this we have notable examples in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted at 1Timothy 1:20. The congregation itself could αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου,—but it could not παραδοῦναι τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, without the authorized concurrence of the Apostle’s πνεύματος, σὺν τῇ δυν. τ. κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰησοῦ.

What the ὄλεθρος τ. σαρκός was to be, does not appear: certainly more than the mere destruction of his pride and lust by repentance, as some (Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose: rather, as Chrys., ἵνα μαστίξῃ αὐτὸν ἕλκει πονηρῷ ἢ νόσῳ ἑτέρᾳ. Hom. xv. p. 127. Estius’s objection to this, that in 2Co_2. and 7. we find no trace of such bodily chastisement, is not to the point,—because we have no proof that this παράδοσις was ever inflicted,—nor does the Apostle command it, but only describes it as his own determination, held as it were in terrorem over the offender. See note on ver. 13.

Obs., σαρκός, the offending element, not σώματος. Paul could not say ὄλεθρον τοῦ σώματος, seeing that the body is to partake of the salvation of the spirit;—but not the σάρξ, see ch. 15:50.

5. ἵνα τὸ πν. σωθῇ] The aim of the ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρ.,—which he said ἤδη τῷ διαβόλῳ νόμους τιθείς, καὶ οὐκ ἀφιεὶς αὐτὸν περαιτέρω προβῆναι, as Chrys. p. 128. Thus the proposed punishment, severe as it might seem, would be in reality a merciful one, tending to the eternal happiness of the offender. A greater contrast to this can hardly be conceived, than the terrible forms of excommunication subsequently devised, and even now in use in the Romish church, under the fiction of delegated apostolic power. The delivering to Satan for the destruction of the spirit, can belong only to those who do the work of Satan. Stanley remarks, “For the popular constitution of the early Corinthian church, see i. 44 (p. 297): where the rulers of that society are described as having been appointed συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης.”

6.] ‘How inconsistent with your harbouring such an one, appear your high-flown conceits of yourselves!’

καύχημα, your matter of glorying.

Are you not aware that a little leaven imparts a character to the whole lump? That this is the meaning, and not, ‘that a little leaven will, if not purged out, leaven the whole lump,’ is manifest from the point in hand, viz. the inconsistency of their boasting: which would not appear by their danger of corruption hereafter, but by their character being actually lost. One of them was a fornicator of a fearfully depraved kind, tolerated and harboured: by this fact, the character of the whole was tainted.

7.] The παλαιὰ ζύμη is not the man, but the crime attaching to their character as a church, which was a remnant of their unconverted state, their παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος. This they are to purge out from among them. The ἐκκαθάρ. alludes to the careful ‘purging out’ from the houses of every thing leavened before the commencement of the feast of unleavened bread. Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr., in loc., gives a full account of the extreme care with which this was done. See also Stanley’s note.

That ye may be a new lump (opposed to the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος of old and dissolute days), as ye are (normally and by your Christian profession) unleavened (i.e. dead to sin and free from it). This indicating the state by profession, the normal state, as a fact, and the grounding of exhortations on it, is common enough with our Apostle,—see Romans 6:3, Romans 6:4: ch. 3:16, al. freq., and involves no tautology here, any more than elsewhere.

An unfortunate interpretation has been given to these words,—‘as ye are now celebrating the feast of unleavened bread;’ and has met with some recent defenders, e.g. Wieseler,—and Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, edn. 2, vol. ii. p. 40, note. But first, the words will not admit it; for ἄζυμοι cannot (as joined immediately with ἐν ἀζύμοις, ver. 8) without much harshness be applied in its literal sense to the celebrators of the feast, but must indicate the material which was unleavened, see reff.,—ἄρτον ζυμιτήν, ἄζυμον, Athenæus iii. 109, and Genesis 19:3; Exodus 29:2. Secondly, the celebration of a Jewish feast would certainly not be predicated without remark of a whole mixed congregation of Gentiles and Jews, even supposing that the Gentile converts did celebrate it with the Jews. It is no answer to this, to cite passages (see Conyb.and Howson, ubi supra), where he seems to treat mixed churches, e.g. Galatians 4:8; Romans 7:1; Romans 11:18, as if they belonged wholly to one or other of their component elements. For this is not a parallel case. He would here, as above, be distinctly predicating, as a fact, of the whole church, a practice which he himself would have been the first to deprecate. See Galatians 4:10. Thirdly, it is not at all probable that the Apostle would either address the Corinthians as engaged in a feast which he, at Ephesus, was then celebrating, seeing that it would probably be over before his letter could be delivered,—or would anticipate their being engaged in it when they received his letter, if it were yet to come. For be it remembered, that in the sense required, they would only be ἄζυμοι during seven days. Here again, I do not see how the example of “a birth-day letter to a friend in India,” adduced by Mr. Conybeare, as an answer to my objection, will apply. It seems to me that if strictly considered, in detail, it tells my way, not his. But, fourthly,—and even could all the other objections be answered, this would remain in its full force,—the reference is one wholly alien from the habit and spirit of our Apostle. The ordinances of the old law are to him not points on whose actual observance to ground spiritual lessons, but things passed away in their literal acceptance, and become spiritual verities in Christ. He thus regards the Corinthian church as (normally) the unleavened lump at the Passover; he beseeches them to put away the old leaven from among them, to correspond with this their normal state: for, he adds, it is high time for us to be ἄζυμοι in very deed (καὶ γάρ—so Xen. Anab. v. 8. 7, ἀκούσατε, ἔφη, καὶ γὰρ ἄξιον. It introduces a powerful reason, for (on other accounts and) also. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 137, 8), seeing that our Passover was sacrificed (see reff.: and cf. Hebrews 9:26, Hebrews 9:28), even Christ (the days of unleavened bread began with the Passover-sacrifice): therefore (reff.) let us keep the feast (not the actual Passover, but the continued Passover-feast of Christians on whose behalf Christ has died. There is no change of metaphor: the Corinthians are the living ἄρτοι, as believers are the living stones of the spiritual temple) not in (as our element) the old leaven (general—our old unconverted state), nor (particular) in the leaven of vice and wickedness (the genitives are of apposition,—‘the leaven which is vice and wickedness;’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 59. 8. a), but in the unleavenedness (τὰ ἄζυμα, unleavened things, see Exodus 12:15, Exodus 12:18) of sincerity and truth. The view here maintained is that of Chrys., καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιμένει τῇ μεταφορᾷ, ἀναμιμνήσκων παλαιᾶς αὐτοὺς ἱστορίας, καὶ πάσχα καὶ ἀζύμων, καὶ τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν τῶν τότε καὶ τῶν νῦν, καὶ τῶν κολάσεων καὶ τῶν τιμωριῶν· ἑορτῆς ἄρα ὁ παρὼν καιρός. καὶ γὰρ εἰπὼν ἑορτάζωμεν, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ πάσχα παρῆν, οὐδὲ ἐπειδὴ ἡ πεντηκοστή, ἔλεγεν, ἀλλὰ δεικνὺς ὅτι πᾶς ὁ χρόνος ἑορτῆς ἐστι καιρὸς τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴ τῶν δοθέντων ἀγαθῶν. Hom. xv. p. 128.

With regard to the chronological superstructure which has been built (by Wieseler and others) on this passage, that the Epistle was written shortly before Easter, we cannot of course say that the approach of the Passover may not have suggested to the Apostle this similitude: and we know from ch. 16:8 that he was looking forward to Pentecost. But further than this it would not be safe to assume: see Prolegg. to this Epistle, § vi. 3, 4.

9-13.] Correction of their misunderstanding of a former command of his respecting keeping company with fornicators.

9.] I wrote to you in my letter (not this present epistle, which τῇ ἐπιστολῇ 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 ver. 2 or ver. 6, which are commonly alleged by those who thus explain it—and ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ 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 2Corinthians 1:15, 2Corinthians 1:16. 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. 4:17: which could not be, as Timothy was not coming to them till after they had received this Epistle, ch. 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. 5:9-6:8, may have been a postscript or note inserted subsequently to the rest of the Epistle, and referring especially to ch. 6:9-20) not to keep company with fornicators.

10.] οὐ πάντως limits the prohibition, which perhaps had been complained of owing to its strictness, and the impossibility of complying with it in so dissolute a place as Corinth, and excepts the fornicators of this world, i.e. who are not professing Christians: not under all circumstances with the fornicators of this—world: so Theophr. C. P. vi. 25, cited by Wetst. on Romans 3:9, ποιεῖ γὰρ οὐ πάντως,—ἀλλʼ ἐὰν οὐλή τις ᾖ ὑπόκαυστος.

οὐ, not μή, because not the whole context of the prohibition is negatived, but only one portion of it, and thus οὐ πάντως τ. π. τ. κός. τ. stands together as one idea. So Thucyd. i. 51, ὑποτοπήσαντες ἀπʼ Ἀθηνῶν εἶναι οὐχ ὅσας ἑώρων ἀλλὰ πλείους. See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 125, 6.

τοῦ κόσμ. τούτου, belonging to the number of unbelievers,—Christians who were πόρνοι being expressly excluded. So Paul ever uses this expression, ch. 3:19; (2Corinthians 4:4;) Ephesians 2:2.

πλεονέκταις and ἅρπαξιν are joined by καί, as belonging to the same class—that of covetous persons;—πλεονέκτης being an avaricious person, not a lascivious one, as sometimes rendered (e.g. Conybeare, vol. ii. p. 41, edn. 2), nor does it seem to have any where merely this meaning; see Ephesians 4:19 and note. Compare on the other side Stanley’s note here, which however has not convinced me. The root of the two sins being the same, viz. lust or greed, they come often to be mentioned together and as if running into one another. See Trench, N. T, Syn. pp. 91, 2. On ἅρπαξιν, Stanley remarks, “It is difficult to see why it should be expressly introduced here, especially if πλεονέκτης has the meaning of sensuality.” Certainly: but not, if πλ. retains its proper meaning, as containing the key to πορνεία on the one hand, and ἁρπαγή on the other.

ἐπεὶ ὠφ.] For in that case ye must go out of the world,—as Chrys. and Theophyl., ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην ζητῆσαι. The past ὠφείλ., as ἔχρην, al., because the necessity would long ago have occurred and the act have passed.

11. νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα] But my meaning was …;—‘but, the case being so, that ye must needs consort with fornicators among the heathen, I wrote to you, not to consort, &c.’

That this is the meaning and not ‘But now I write (the epistolary aorist), &c.,’ seems plain, from the use of ἔγραψα twice so close together, and therefore probably in the same reference,—from the fact noticed by Meyer, that if a contrast had been intended between ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ and νῦν, ἐν τῇ ἐπ. must have preceded ἔγραψα:—and from the usage of νῦν δέ, of which Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g. Plut. Protag. p. 347, νῦν δὲ σφόδρα γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ψευδόμενος δοκεῖς ἀληθῆ λέγειν, διὰ ταῦτά σε ἐγὼ ψέγω,—and Lycurg. Leocr. p. 138, ἐβουλόμην δʼ ἂν, ὦ ἄνδρες … νῦν δὲ … See also Hebrews 11:16. Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation,—that the Apostle had previously given a command, and now retracted it.

ἐάν τις] If one who is called a brother be, &c. Œcumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, al., join ὀνομαζόμενος with πόρνος, and understand it either as = ὀνομαστός, ‘be a notorious πόρνος, &c.,’ or ‘be named a πόρνος &c.’ But ὀνομαζόμ. or even ὀνομαστός, in the bad sense, is hardly admissible,—and in either case Paul would have written ἀδελφός τις, the stress on ἀδελφός in that case requiring it to precede τις, as it now precedes ὀνομαζόμενος.

εἰδωλολάτρης] One who from any motive makes a compromise with the habits of the heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices: Chrys. well remarks, προκαταβάλλεται τὸν περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων λόγον ὃν μετὰ ταῦτα μέλλει γυμνάζεσθαι.

μέθυσος was, in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 (but see Lobeck’s note), μέθυσος ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἐρεῖς, ἀλλὰ μεθυστικός· γυναῖκα δὲ ἐρεῖς μέθυσον κ. μεθύσην: and Pollux, vi. 25 (Wetst.), μέθυσος ἐπὶ ἀνδρῶν Μενάνδρῳ δεδόσθω.

Seeing that μηδὲ συνεσθίειν must imply a more complete separation than μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι, it cannot be applied to the ἀγάπαι (as Mosheim, al.), but must keep its general meaning,—not even to sit at table with such an one. This rule, as that in 2Thessalonians 3:14, regards only their private intercourse with the offending person: nothing is here said of public excommunication, though for some of these crimes it would be implied.

12.] Ground of the above limitation.

τί γάρ μοι.…] for what concern of mine is it …? So Ælian, Var. H. vi. 11, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ἐῶ. τί γάρ μοι κωφοῖς κ. ἀνοήτοις συμβουλεύειν τὰ λυσιτελέστατα; see other examples in. Wetst.

τοὺς ἔξω] reff. It was among the Jews the usual term for the Gentiles. Cf. Schöttgen in loc.

He means, ‘this might have been easily understood to be my meaning: for what concern have I with pronouncing sentence on the world without, or with giving rules of discipline for them? I could only have referred to persons among yourselves.’

οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω] “Ex eo, quod in ecclesia fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9. Cives judicatis, non alienos: quanto magis ego.” Bengel. But I am not quite certain of this interpretation, which is also that of De Wette and Meyer, because it would more naturally correspond to οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω καὶ ὑμεῖς κρίνετε; A preferable way seems to be this; ‘My judgment was meant to lead your judgment. This being the case, what concern had I with those without? Is it not on those within, that your judgments are passed?’ The arrangement mentioned by Theophylact, and adopted by Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Rosenm., al., οὐχί· τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε, ‘No: those within do ye (imper.) judge,’—is clearly wrong, for οὐχί is no answer to τί, and would require ἀλλά after it,—even supposing μοι τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν and τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε formed any intelligible logical contrast, which they do not.

13.] But those who are without God judgeth. The pres. κρίνει both expresses better the attribute and office of God, and answers better to the other presents than the future κρινεῖ. I have therefore retained it. The future perhaps came from Hebrews 13:4. ‘To judge those without, is God’s matter.’ These remarks about judging form a transition point to the subject of the next chapter. But having now finished his explanation of the prohibition formerly given, and with it the subject of the fornicator among them, he gives, before passing on, a plain command in terms for the excommunication (but no more: not the punishment mentioned in vv. 3-5) of the offender. And this he does in the very words of Deuteronomy 24:7 (from which the reading καὶ ἐξαρεῖτε has come).

ὑμῶν αὐτῶν is in Deut., but need not therefore lose its emphatic force: from among your own selves.