1 Corinthians 5
LenskiCHAPTER V
The Second Part of the Letter
Moral Delinquencies in the Congregation, chapters 5 and 6
I. The Case of Open Incest, chapter 5
1 Corinthians 5:1
1 Without a preamble Paul proceeds medias in res and succinctly states the flagrant case that demoralized the Corinthian congregation. In general one hears among you of fornication, and of such fornication as does not occur among the Gentiles, namely that one has his father’s wife. Much effort is spent to determine what ὅλως means in the present connection. The R. V. strangely translates “actually,” which is out of the question. The translation “everywhere” cannot be substantiated from any other source and seems to have been chosen only because the evil report regarding Corinth is supposed to have been circulated far and wide.
All efforts to connect ὅλως with something in the preceding chapter have failed; hence its meaning cannot be determined from this investigation. The search for rare and exceptional uses of this adverb, especially in the papyri and the ostraca, is interesting but rather unpromising. Luther, whom the A. V. follows, is on the right track when he abides by the ordinary meaning of ὅλως and translates: Es geht ein gemein Geschrei (converting the adverb into an adjective although Geschrei is too strong), “It is reported commonly.” But both of these translations labor under the impression that Paul is speaking concerning a report that has gone out from Corinth and has become gemein or “common” in other Christian churches.
There is also confusion regarding the rest of the sentence. The subject of ἀκούεται is undoubtedly the noun πορνεία, and this means that the phrase “among you” modifies the verb; thus literally: “In general fornication is heard among you,” or more smoothly: “Among you one hears of fornication.” The matter is talked about in your midst; your members hear about it from one another; the thing is no longer a secret, unknown to you. Luther and our versions translate: It is reported “that there is fornication among you,” as though ἐνὑμῖνπορνεία should be taken together as constituting a subject clause. R. 803 also lends support to this rendering by regarding the passive verb as impersonal: “it is reported,” which then calls for the clause: “that there is,” etc.
Here we have an instance where the preconception as to what the writer is thought to say has affected even the grammar. Traces of this preconception are evident even when the sentence is properly construed as far as the subject is concerned. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that this hearing in regard to fornication does not take place among the members in Corinth (ἐνὑμῖν) but abroad in other churches. If the clause is not arranged so as to read: “that there is fornication among you,” then the equivalent of such a clause is secured by attaching the phrase “among you” to “fornication” as indicating where the fornication occurs. But in the Greek the phrase would then have to follow “fornication.”
The plea that fornication cannot be heard has no validity, for crimes are constantly heard in the obvious sense that reports concerning them reach our ears. What Paul writes is that the Corinthians hear reports of fornication in their own midst, even about the terrible case he now specifies, and yet remain puffed up as before, do not as much as mourn, to say nothing of taking strenuous action.
The explicative καί specifies by naming the flagrant case with which Paul confronts the Corinthians. Paul states it succinctly: “that a man has his father’s wife.” It was such a case “as does not occur even among the Gentiles” or pagans, to say nothing about Jews and Christians. Even Roman law forbade unions of this kind; they are naturally abhorrent. One does not need Christianity to repudiate them. Although some monstrous cases are known to have occurred in the old pagan world, this fact does not overthrow the rule that among the Gentiles a case such as this one which had occurred at Corinth is unheard of. Lev. 18:8 and Deut. 22:30 record the pertinent Jewish law. “So that,” ὥστε, is equal to ὡς. while ἔχεινγυναῖκα might include marriage, we assume no marriage in this case since Roman law prohibited such unions.
Hence this union did not have even the semblance of regularity. The article used with “father” is equal to the possessive “his father.”
Paul refrains from mentioning the man’s name. We may say that he does this because the case is not as yet closed, for in other cases where men are actually expelled Paul does name them. The fact that the father was dead cannot be assumed because of 2 Cor. 7:12. Such an assumption would make the case a little less horrible, yet would not eliminate its worst feature. Nothing further is said about the woman in question. In order not to make the case appear worse than is necessary, we infer that she was the man’s stepmother.
Likewise, the absence of further reference to the woman is best taken to indicate that she was still a pagan. Finally, we assume that this case developed after the man had been received into membership in the Corinthian congregation and not before. What induced him to perpetrate such a deed as this, and why the congregation ever allowed this relation to continue after the act became known, is not revealed to us. Were the members at Corinth so taken up with their factional wrangling that their eyes were closed even to this kind of moral turpitude? Or did this man occupy such a prominent place in the congregation that the members did not venture to challenge his crime?
1 Corinthians 5:2
2 We may assume that the former was the case, for Paul continues: And you are still puffed up and did not rather mourn in order that he who did this deed might be removed from your midst. This verse may be regarded as a question although the Greek has no particle to indicate that it is such. “You,” placed forward, is emphatic: “You, still puffed up as you are,” allow this to pass without concern? Instead of boasting about themselves they should “rather” (μᾶλλον) do a far more appropriate thing, be filled with sorrow. For this matter concerned not only the sinner involved, it concerned all of them.
Paul first mentions the feeling which this outrageous occurrence should have evoked in the hearts of the Corinthians, and this is not anger and indignation but grief and deepest sorrow: “and you did not rather mourn.” This indicates the motive that ought to underlie proper Christian disciplinary action: grief over the devil’s success, sorrow for our congregation because it suffers such disgrace, mourning for the soul of the sinner who has been overwhelmed with sin and guilt.
The next clause, however, mentions the action that should emanate from this sorrow, namely the disciplinary removal of the sinner: he should have been expelled from the congregation. Sometimes a congregation merely deplores open moral defections in its midst and, like Eli of old, contents itself with that. Such conduct means that the feeling of sorrow is still too shallow. The congregation thus remains partaker of the sin and guilt. The Corinthians lacked even this sorrow. No wonder they did not proceed “in order that he who did this deed might be removed from your midst,” ἀρθῆ, from αἴρω, aorist subjunctive passive. The present infinitive ἔχειν describes the man’s action as continuing, ὁποιήσας, an aorist points to the act as being done and thus as a fact; τὸἔργον is often used with reference to an evil deed.
1 Corinthians 5:3
3 The Corinthians have taken no action; Paul takes action at once and informs the Corinthians regarding what he has done and what, as far as he is concerned, stands (this is the force of the perfect κέκρικα). For I, absent in body though present in spirit, have already passed judgment as present on the man who did thus perpetrate this thing: In the name of our Lord Jesus, you and my spirit duly assembled together, by the power of our Lord Jesus to deliver such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
“For” intends to explain that, although the Corinthians did not even mourn when this case began to be reported in their midst, Paul has done more. “I,” written out, is emphatic, and μέν, although without a corresponding δέ, implies that others are to join Paul in the action he describes.
But Paul is in Ephesus, and the Corinthians are far away in Corinth. This situation is taken care of by the participles: “absent in body though present in spirit.” The separation is only physical, “as to the body”; Paul is, nevertheless, present in Corinth, namely “as to the spirit” (datives of relation). We need not puzzle our heads about this type of presence, for we still say: “I am with you in spirit,” when in some important matter mind and heart are united with distant friends.
The perfect κέκρικα conveys the idea that Paul judged the case and that this judgment stands; the force of the tense is intensified by the adverb “already.” Paul intends to say that the case is so clear in every respect that he finds no reason to hesitate regarding the verdict—that is settled. Succinctly he again states the case which justifies this quick verdict: I have already passed judgment “on the man who thus perpetrated this thing.” “Thus” and “this thing” indicate the gravity of both the manner and the crime: “in this abominable way” this man perpetrated “this abominable deed.” The substantivized participle τὸνκατεργασάμενον is a stronger expression than the preceding ὁποιήσας, for it indicates that the finished deed was done in a shameless way and is equivalent to our “perpetrator.” The man did the thing although every law of God and of man most emphatically prohibits such a crime and terms it incest.
Thus Paul’s immediate verdict is fully justified. No just judge could act otherwise. Yet Paul carefully adds: I have passed this judgment “as present” with you. We shall see in a moment why this addition is so important. The translation: “I have already resolved,” is unacceptable because the direct object follows immediately: “the man who thus perpetrated this thing.” This accusative is the direct object of κέκρικα because of its position and cannot be the object of the remote infinitive παραδοῦναι, which has its own object: “such a man.”
1 Corinthians 5:4
4 Paul then records the actual verdict in due legal form and uses the infinitive of indirect discourse. Regarding its form and its length Bengel remarks: graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio. The substance of the verdict is simple: “to deliver such a man over to Satan” (direct discourse: “I deliver over,” etc.). Yet all the additions and the modifications attached to this verdict are of the utmost importance.
First, the set formula: “In the name of our Lord Jesus.” The solemn announcement of the verdict begins with this phrase in order to mark the manner of the grave action that is taken. Sometimes this simple formula without additions or modifiers is employed: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.” The statement of the legal action then follows. We thus decline to regard this solemn formula as a mere modifier of the following genitive absolute as though Paul intends to say no more than that he and the Corinthians are assembled in the Lord’s name. The very nature of this grave formula is such that it cannot belong merely to some subsidiary act that also needs to be mentioned when a full statement of the verdict is made but must belong to the supreme act itself which constitutes the verdict.
In phrases of this kind ὄνομα is often regarded as an expression of authority or of representation so that “in the name” equals: “by the authority of our Lord,” etc., or: “as representing our Lord,” etc. But ἐν means “in union with,” and ὄνομα is that by which the Lord makes himself known and by which he is known to us, namely his revelation. Thus the phrase means: “in union or in accord with the revelation of our Lord Jesus.” In all vital actions of the church such as the one here recorded the essential point is that these actions accord fully with the revelation which Christ has made to us in his Word.
A second formula follows, which is legal in its nature and thus necessary to the verdict here placed on record by Paul. It reads like the preamble to a resolution or a decision when it is set down in proper form: “We being duly assembled,” etc. Paul cannot, however, say “we” in this case because he is in Ephesus and is present in that assumed assembly in Corinth only “in spirit.” So he writes “you and my spirit duly assembled together.” We should not consider κέκρικα, “I have passed judgment,” apart from this association of Paul’s spirit with the Corinthians in a duly called assembly. Twice before he has emphasized this point of his presence in Corinth in connection with the rendering of this verdict: first, “I, absent in body yet present in spirit”; secondly, “passed judgment as present.”
Why this emphasis on his presence in Corinth for this judgment? Why can he not say right here in Ephesus: “I here and now give this verdict”? Why is his presence in a duly called meeting of the congregation so essential? Because not even an apostle can of himself and by himself excommunicate a person from a Christian congregation. The attempt to do such a thing is papal arrogance. No pastor can expel a member no matter what the member has done.
Expulsion is an act that can be performed only in a duly called meeting of the congregation. If a wrong-minded congregation refuses to expel where it ought to, the person involved remains a member to the disgrace of the congregation. The pastor should use all proper efforts, as Paul does here, to persuade the congregation to take action. If it refuses, the pastor, who is Christ’s slave-steward (4:1) and directly responsible to him for the mysteries of God entrusted to his hands, has the right to withhold from the unexpelled sinner the Lord’s Supper, etc., in order to safeguard his own conscience and his office so that he may not become a δοῦλος or slave of men.
When Paul writes regarding his presence in spirit in the duly assembled meeting of the Corinthians, we see that he does not, after all, mean that it is he alone who expels by virtue of his supreme apostolic power. For then he would neither need to be present, nor would the Corinthians need to hold a duly called meeting in the matter. If Paul were physically present with the congregation he would as an apostle and as the founder of this church naturally lead and direct the congregation in its action, would preside at the meeting, and would formulate properly and then announce publicly the verdict arrived at even as he does now “already” in his letter.
Yet in reality Paul’s presence, either in the body or in the spirit, is not an essential feature of this or of any other action of the congregation so that his absence, or the absence of a pastor, or of a representative of the clergy, would make proper action impossible. Paul rebukes the congregation for not having acted at once, “without him, and for having delayed so long. This is the only reason he enters into the case at all, i.e., now urging and leading the congregation to do its duty. They in and of themselves have the full right and the power to act. Ordinarily a congregation has a pastor when an expulsion impends, but the presence of a pastor is not in itself an essential feature of the action as if without a pastor the congregation were either not complete or not competent. Note the use of συνάγεσθαι to indicate a meeting that is duly brought together. Only in this instance does Paul use this verb; elsewhere, five times, he writes συνέρχεσθαι, which merely states the coming together.
The proper preambles have been formulated, and now the verdict they usher in follows. This begins with the phrase “by the power of our Lord Jesus.” The very meaning of the preposition σύν, “with the help of,” settles the question as to whether this phrase depends on the preceding genitive absolute or on the following infinitive “to deliver over.” People are not assembled “with the help of a power” or “together with a power,” but they do act “with the help of” and “together with a power.” R. 624. The Corinthians are enabled to take such drastic action against one of their members because they have the power of their Lord. This is, of course, his gospel power which has two divine functions, one to admit to union with God (contrition and faith), the other to debar from this union (impenitence, unbelief, hardening), Mark 16:16; John 20:22, 23. Luther: “I believe that when the called ministers of Christ by his divine command deal with us, particularly when they exclude the manifest and impenitent sinners from the Christian congregation and again absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend—that this is as valid and certain, also in heaven, as if Christ, our dear Lord, had dealt with us himself.”
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 304, etc., finds “the unobtrusive little word σύν” a technical term that is used in pagan magical and cursing formulas. He gives one example: “I will bind her … in fellowship with Hecate, who is below the earth, and the Erinyes.” But while σὺνθʼ Ἑκάτ (η) ι may mean “in fellowship with Hecate,” Paul does not write “in fellowship with the power of the Lord,” which is something quite different. There is no need to add other examples of σύν used with εἶναι, for no such combination is found in Paul’s words. Deissmann overlooks κέκρικα, a legal term, and συναχθέντωνὑμῶν, a legally called assembly, in fact, the legal formulation of Paul’s verdict, something that is far removed from magic and magical curses. The fact that Satan is mentioned in Paul’s verdict is not a reason for concluding that this is not a verdict but a form of some magical curse.
1 Corinthians 5:5
5 To deliver over to Satan means negatively to expel from Christ’s kingdom and positively to relegate to Satan’s kingdom. Yet let us remember that this is a court action, a judical verdict. By his crime and his impenitence the man placed himself into Satan’s power. He merely deceived himself and others by thinking that he was still a Christian because he was being wrongfully allowed to continue his outward connection with the church. This wrongful outward connection now ceases. After this verdict has been rendered, he and all the Corinthians know the fact that the man is under Satan and not under Christ.
A misleading thought is advanced when it is stated that there is a difference between what is called expulsion from a congregation and deliverance unto Satan. Nor can it be supposed that only an apostle could deliver unto Satan while the congregation might expel in its own right, ἀρθῇ, v. 2. As to the latter claim compare v. 13, where Paul uses ἐξάρατε as denoting the very action inaugurated by the apostle here in v. 3–5. In the case of all impenitent sinners to expel is identical with handing over to Satan, for if a man no longer belongs to Christ, then he eo ipso belongs to Satan. Tertium non datur. Only when the question is one of doctrine is there a possibility that he who holds some false doctrine and will not abjure it may still have enough of the gospel in his heart to keep him in faith.
Yet because of his obdurate holding to false doctrine the congregation must disown him although it thereby makes no special pronouncement as to his possible faith. The congregation must keep itself clean. Such a separation is similar to a separation from errorists and erring churches in general, Rom. 16:17.
Deissmann concludes that παραδοῦναι is also a technical pagan term that is taken from the ritual of cursing and is here adopted by Paul but adduces as proof only a Greek papyrus of the fourth century A. D.: “Daemon of the dead … I deliver unto thee N. N. in order that …” He tells us that such curses were written on tablets and reached their address by being buried in the ground, and that in their formulas of expulsion Christians substituted Satan for the pagan demons. But this is again specious. Paul’s pronouncement is that of a court. When a court decrees: “We nand thee over,” παραδοῦναι, this means “into custody of a jailor.” It just so happens that the same verb παραδίδωμι is employed in both instances.
In this case Satan is the equivalent of the jailor. Just because Satan is mentioned here we are not justified in advancing the idea of cursing and of demons who carry out curses.
“Such a man” is the necessary object of the infinitive “to deliver over.” The individual in question has been already described as to his crime and as to his guilt, v. 1–3. Now Paul says that he is “such,” a man of this type and this character. This designation virtually establishes the general principle that every man of such a character should be dealt with in a similar manner. This is the correct attitude to assume in all cases of Christian discipline.
In cases of expulsion the congregation is, first of all, concerned about itself. For its own sake it must rid itself of flagrant sinners, v. 13. If no adequate measures are taken, the congregation itself becomes partaker of the sinners’ guilt. But, in the second place, the congregation is also concerned about the sinners. If there is even a remote possibility that they can yet be saved, the attempt to save them must be made. This truth lies in εἰς which indicates the proximate purpose and in ἵνα which introduces the ultimate purpose.
The truth of the matter is not that, when a moral delinquent is expelled, the congregation thereby intends to send him to perdition. Deissmann, whom R. 628 follows, should not find here a parallel with the pagan ritual of cursing. Such curses intend to send to perdition; Christian expulsion is a last resort that intends to save, ἵνασωθῇ.
“For the destruction of the flesh.” The word σάρξ is not identical with the body, σῶμα, and this statement does not refer to bodily suffering including also bodily death. How can the ultimate purpose of saving the sinner be attained when he is brought to death? And who is to kill this sinner? Satan? In his Introduction to the New Testament Zahn writes as though the Corinthians were to perform the execution. Yet no congregation has the right to kill, and no executioner is listed among the church officers. In Second Corinthians Zahn has Paul reverse himself: after the congregation disobeyed to the extent of not killing the man, Paul, too, now does not want him killed.
When “flesh” is identified with “body” although it be termed the physical seat of sin, unwarranted interpretations are given also to πνεῦμα and the saving of the spirit of the sinner, for the Scriptures know nothing of the final salvation of a sinner’s spirit apart from his body. Either both are saved, or neither is saved. In this very letter Paul teaches the glorious resurrection of the body of every sinner that is saved. In view of this fact these interpreters introduce the salvation also of the body of the dead sinner. Moreover, the silent assumption that Satan is to work the destruction of the body reacts on the final clause so that the agent implied in the passive verb “may be saved” of necessity also becomes Satan.
The words σάρξ and πνεῦμα are to be understood in the ethical sense. This Corinthian sinner had allowed the flesh to triumph over the spirit or new principle that had been implanted in his heart by the gospel. Expulsion is the last possible means for undoing this work of sin. By publicly turning the man away from Christ and over to Satan the “flesh” which Satan had caused to triumph in him receives opportunity to develop unchecked. All barriers, even the outward shams, are now down. He is free to give full sway to his fleshly lusts.
But by their very excess these have a tendency to defeat themselves, for the works of the flesh produce bitterness and gall as their fruits. The prodigal, separated from his father, came down to the level of swine. That helped eventually to save him, not as a causa efficiens, but as a contributing factor in God’s hands. Some sinners must taste the dregs before they realize what their sin really is. For this reason Paul mentions no agent in connection with the “destruction.” By running to its own extreme the “flesh” defeats itself.
In this way the ultimate purpose may, after all, be achieved: “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Thus it was, indeed, achieved in the prodigal and also in this Corinthian sinner, in him even more speedily. Instead of calling this clause regarding the sinner’s final salvation eine ueberraschende Wendung (a surprising turn) in Paul’s verdict, we shall thus become aware of the fact that it is altogether proper and not at all surprising. Whatever surprise there may be lies in the fact that by formally delivering a man over to Satan the actual “destruction of the flesh” could result.
We know, of course, that a σώζειν cannot take place without the proper divine means of grace. Although Paul does not allude to them as little as Jesus does in the parable of the Prodigal, these means are necessarily included. This, in its way, pertains also to the destruction of the flesh. When the prodigal sat among the swine, the recollection of his father and of the abundance in his father’s house revived in his mind. That is what as the efficient cause drew him to contrition and repentance so that he was saved. The expelled sinner takes with him the memory of Christ, of the gospel, of the church, etc.
When his flesh has brought him low, this memory may yet succeed in saving him. The πνεῦμα, the spiritual life, which was crushed by the σάρξ may be rekindled and “saved.” Nor is there need to talk about the σῶμα or body in this connection since the spirit is never saved without the body.
Paul adds: “in the day of our Lord Jesus,” and thus for the third time mentions this sacred name in his verdict. This is the great day on which the Lord, our Judge, shall appear before the whole world of angels and of men and shall render just judgment to all. Then he shall confirm publicly every true gospel judgment of his church and shall publicly accept also every sinner who has been saved through the gospel discipline which he has committed to his church. The forensic idea thus dominates the entire verdict.
1 Corinthians 5:6
6 Considering what Paul is compelled to demand in the matter of this case of incest he rightly adds: Your reason for glory is not good, καλόν, “excellent” in the moral sense. Indeed, how could people who allowed such moral obliquity to remain in their midst still think they had reason to boast? The term καύχημα denotes the thing in which one glories and makes his boast as distinct from καύχησις, the act by which one glories. “Not good” is a litotes and means “bad,” κακόν. Yet our versions and prominent commentators translate as though Paul has written the latter term: “It is bad in the face of your delinquency in this case to boast; you ought to be ashamed.” One cannot, however, refrain from asking why Paul does not write καύχησις if this is what he means. Moreover, the act of boasting is bad only when there is something amiss about the reason for boasting. So it appears that Paul writes καύχημα because this is what he has in mind. The Corinthians may speak of wisdom, great spiritual charismata, etc., this case of open immorality is evidence that their reason for boasting is anything but good.
Yet someone may object: This is only one case, and we dare not generalize on the basis of one case. Paul answers in a telling way: Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the entire lump? His reprimand is by no means a matter of generalizing and drawing an unwarranted conclusion from a single case. Paul may be using a proverb or a common saying that was well known to the Corinthians. But aside from the source of his expression the fact itself is self-evident to the Corinthians, they certainly know that it takes only a bit of leaven to leaven an entire mass of dough. The entire congregation is necessarily involved in the case which Paul brings to their attention.
Not, indeed, in the sense that one evil man makes the whole congregation evil, but in the sense that by allowing one vicious case in their midst the entire membership becomes involved in the guilt of this one case. Yeast or leaven is used figuratively in the New Testament in both a good sense (Jesus in the parable, Matt. 13:33) and an evil sense (Jesus regarding the teaching of the Pharisees, Matt. 16:6–12; Paul a second time in Gal. 5:9). The point of the saying lies in the contrast between “little” leaven and the “entire” lump.
1 Corinthians 5:7
7 This evil leaven must be removed. Clean out the old leaven in order that you may be a new lump even as you are unleavened. This injunction, however, means far more than the removal of the one flagrant case or of this and of other bad cases. For the leaven that operated to such a vicious conclusion in this one case and was contaminating the entire congregation is really “the old leaven” (note the article), that specific leaven that is “old” because it is left over from the old life they once lived apart from Christ. Paul traces the Corinthian disinclination to take action against this one vicious case to its real source, the old worldly and fleshly disposition that was carried over in their hearts from their former life. The aorist: “Clean it out!” is peremptory and denotes a most thorough cleaning as also ἐκ indicates.
The figure of cleaning out the old leaven is taken from the Jewish custom of removing all leaven and anything leavened from the house in preparation for the Jewish Passover Feast. Its force is thus at once perceived. In the purpose clause: “in order that you may be a new lump,” we should note the adjective νέος which means “new” in the sense that the thing did not exist before while καινός means “new” in the sense that a thing differs from what is old. Both terms are used with reference to our new Christian nature in Eph. 4:23, 24. Here Paul says that the Corinthians are not merely to be a lump that is “new” in so far as they differed from what they once were, but “new” in a sense in which they had not before been. They are to be a lump of dough that is just freshly mixed, to which nothing in the way of yeast has been added.
Their Christian character and life are to be like an entirely fresh start. He might also have used the other word: new and no longer old, and this, too, would have been pertinent; but he prefers the word νέος because it is stronger.
“Even as you are unleavened,” however, wards off a possible misunderstanding as though Paul is now calling upon the Corinthians for the first time to emerge from the old life and to make a new start. No; what Paul bids them do is “in accord with the fact that they are already unleavened.” Paul acknowledges them as brethren throughout, hence as ἄζυμοιὄντες. “To be unleavened” is the Christian’s essential characteristic, for he is reborn, a new creature, etc. In fact, Paul could not have told the Corinthians to clean out the old leaven if they had still been an unconverted people because spiritual powers are needed for this purging. So Paul now reminds the Corinthians of what they really are as Christians, namely ἄζυμοι, “unleavened.” It would be altogether abnormal for such people to allow an old leaven again to work among them; καθώς, “even as,” “according,” often points to a norm. There is no stress on ἐστέ as its position shows, and we should not translate: “according as you are unleavened.”
By calling the Corinthians “unleavened” Paul appeals to a subjective motive, namely to the real character of the Corinthians as Christians. But there is more, namely the greatest possible objective motive or reason for this cleansing that Paul enjoins. Thus “also” adds, and “for” names the reason. For also our Passover was sacrificed, Christ. The pronoun has no emphasis, otherwise the Greek would at least place it before “the Passover.” The stress is on “the Passover,” namely on Christ and on the fact that this was sacrificed (θύειν, to slay, to offer, to send up in smoke). The figure begun with leaven is thus extended into allegory.
According to the ancient Jewish rite a lamb was slain, and that slain lamb was made (for each family or for a similar group) the Passover. In a similar way Christ was slain to be our Passover Lamb. The connection of this lamb with Paul’s admonition is implied yet is evident and clear: the Passover Lamb slain, and the Passover Feast thus begun, and yet the old leaven not cleaned out of the house—what a contradiction! If such a thing would be frightful in the case of the Jews who slew and ate only lambs which were merely types, how much worse is it for us Christians who have our divine Lamb, the antitype, slain once for the deliverance of the world!
We need not trouble in the present connection to distinguish between the lambs that were slain at the first Passover in Egypt and those that were slain year by year in grateful commemoration of that ancient deliverance. Paul lays the stress on ἐτύθη, on the fact of the sacrificial slaying, not on the eating of the flesh of the lambs. Paul thus recalls to the Corinthians the deliverance wrought for them by Christ’s blood, and in the pronoun “our” he includes himself. What was done in Egypt and what was done year by year since that time are thus combined.
1 Corinthians 5:8
8 And so let us celebrate, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. After the Lamb had been slain, the Passover celebration should proceed: “Let up keep festival.” The connective ὥστε is paratactic, not hypotactic, R. 999. The subjunctive ἑορτάζωμεν is independent of ὥστε, for it would be the subjunctive even if the connective were omitted. This subjunctive is hortative, R. 931. We translate: “And so let us keep the feast.” The festival or feast we are to celebrate (ἑορτή) embraces the entire Christian life—an attractive figure, indeed. All the modifiers, too, retain the figure.
These are first negative and then positive. “Not with old leaven” points backward to v. 7 and the cleaning out of the old leaven of the worldly and the fleshly spirit. “With the old leaven” is general and includes any and all leaven that is old and belongs to the worldly spirit. Hence the more specific addition “nor with leaven of badness and wickedness.” These genitives are appositional or definitive, R. 498. This leaven consists of badness and wickedness. The genitives thus interpret the figure of “leaven.” The two genitives denote one idea since they are synonyms: κακία, “badness,” when something is altogether inferior and not what it should be (“malice” in our versions is incorrect); πονηρία is active evil or “wickedness”; Schlech-tigkcit und Boshaftigkeit. Both appertain to the case of the man whom the Corinthians should have expelled as well as to their evil way of taking no action whatever in this case.
The positive side is likewise expressed by two genitives: “but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” As the opposite of ζύμη Paul uses the neuter plural ἄζυμα, matzoth, Ungesaeuertes, thin sheets of bread that are baked without yeast (but not τὰἄζυμα, which designates the festival itself). The genitives are again appositional and interpretative and again present one idea. The word εἰλικρινεία means purity and sincerity, without the admixture of a foreign substance. In this connection the foreign substance would be the evil leaven which adulterates the pure motives and actions of the Corinthians. The synonymous term is ἀλήθεια, “truth,” which is here regarded as a moral quality, the inner desire for divine reality which tolerates and accepts no shams. These are the cakes of pure, unleavened bread on which the Corinthians are to feast all their life long in one continuous celebration. The combined genitives thus apply to the special case of the man and to the way in which the Corinthians should deal with him and to the character and the conduct of the Corinthians in general.
These last three verses are full of the imagery of the Jewish Easter festival, the Passover. Paul’s marked use of this imagery at this time has led to the generally accepted conclusion that he wrote this letter shortly before the Jewish Passover season, so that his mind was naturally filled with this imagery. With this dating of his letter corresponds his plan to start on the journey to Corinth at the coming of the Jewish Pentecost festival. But it would be unsafe to conclude either that the old Jewish festivals were still celebrated in the newly formed Christian congregations, or that corresponding Christian festivals were already celebrated at this early date.
1 Corinthians 5:9
9 In this connection, that of the incestuous man, Paul corrects a perversion of the admonition he had sent the Corinthians in a letter of a previous date. I wrote you in my letter not to associate with fornicators. The phrase “in my (the) letter” is quite decisive, R. 757. We have a parallel in 2 Cor. 7:8, where Paul refers to this present letter with the identical phrase. It is quite impossible that this phrase should refer to the letter which Paul is now engaged in writing and thus to regard ἔγραψα as the so-called epistolary aorist, because the Corinthians could not twist and misunderstand a sentence of this letter before the letter came into their hands. Nor can we assume that Paul is afraid that they might misunderstand after they had received this letter and that he is, therefore, warding off such a possible misunderstanding in advance.
For in the portion of the present letter thus far completed we nowhere find the warning “not to associate with fornicators,” nor anything that can be construed as an equivalent. This makes inevitable the conclusion that one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians has been lost to us. How it came to be lost we do not know. Yet we have no reason to assume that the New Testament canon is incomplete, or that the doctrine of Inspiration is in any way affected. God’s providence did not consider it necessary to preserve this lost letter to us, and that suffices. Moreover, there is evidence that Paul wrote still other letters that are not embodied in the New Testament canon, Col. 4:16.
“Not to associate with fornicators” is the infinitive of indirect discourse used for the original imperative: “Be not associating with,” etc., the present tense marking a course of conduct, R. 1047 and 1170. The verb is the reciprocal middle: “not to mingle yourselves with fornicators,” R. 811: σύν + ἀνά + μίγνυσθαι = mix yourselves—up—with.
1 Corinthians 5:10
10 From the explanation which Paul gives of the admonition which he had sent the Corinthians we see how the Corinthians evaded the force of that admonition. When Paul wrote them not to associate with fornicators, they took that to refer to any and to all fornicators anywhere and everywhere and thought all were to be avoided in the same manner. By driving Paul’s injunction to the extreme they converted it into an impossible requirement and thus disregarded it entirely. So they paid no attention to fornicators even in their own midst, among them being the perpetrator of this vicious case of incest. The Corinthians perhaps touched on their view of Paul’s command in the letter they sent to him. At any rate, Paul corrects this foolish evasion.
Not entirely with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; since then you are obliged to depart out of the world.
This is the negative side of Paul’s elucidation of the admonition he had written to the Corinthians, the positive side follows in v. 11. “I wrote you to keep aloof from fornicators, that is, not entirely from the fornicators of this world,” such an extravagant idea is far from my mind. Verse 10 is not a continuation of the quotation from Paul’s previous letter but an explanation which Paul now gives. Thus οὑπάντως, “not entirely,” belong together, and οὑ is used (not μή) because only one word is negatived, the adverb “entirely.”
“Not entirely with the fornicators of this world” is the elucidating apposition which Paul now adds to the previous briefer dative “with fornicators” (v. 10), which the Corinthians were pleased to misunderstand. This simple apposition intends to say: “I evidently meant: not entirely from all the fornicators you may come in contact with in the world.” While Paul quietly explains, the simplicity of his explanation reflects on the good sense of the Corinthians who should have understood Paul in the first place.
“Not entirely,” etc., is careful and exact. It intends to say that even in the case of such outside fornicators some contacts are to be avoided, we may say those of an intimate, personal nature while, of course, certain other contacts are unavoidable, we may say those of a business nature. We cannot supply: “I wrote” after the negative and read: “Not did I write, entirely with the fornicators of this world.” While it is true that Paul did not add these specifications in his first letter, no reader or hearer can be expected to make the pause thus required after “not” and in his mind supply “I wrote.” He will automatically combine “not” and “entirely” and read “not entirely.”
By adding to “fornicators” the other classes of open sinners: “or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters,” Paul lifts the matter above a reference to only one kind of sinners and indicates that a principle is involved which is applicable to all open and flagrant sinners. “Not entirely” applies to all of them. The fornicators are one class, the covetous and extortioners another class, and the idolaters a third. Paul is, of course, not concerned about cataloging all the flagrant sinners in the world. He mentions three classes as being sufficient for his purpose, namely that his command concerning fornicators rests on a general principle.
A πλεονέκτης is one who seeks to get more than belongs to him, a greedy, avaricious person, and here one whose greediness appears in his crooked actions so that the congregation is able to see it clearly. A ἅρπαξ is of the same type and thus is paired with the covetous man; he does not stop at even violent measures to rob others. The first two classes sin against the second table of the law, the third class is even worse in that it sins against the first table. While he is posing as a member of a Christian congregation the idolater still runs after gods that are no gods.
What is involved in “not entirely” is explained by a deduction: “since then you are obliged to depart out of the world.” The protasis must be supplied, and ἐπεί with the imperfect presents only the apodosis, a non-fulfilled present, R. 965 and 1014. Regarding the imperfect consult R. 887. It was ridiculous on the part of the Corinthians to read Paul’s command in the former letter so as to involve an absurd and impossible conclusion; but it was even worse on the basis of it to exempt themselves from disciplining the flagrant fornicator in their midst. The ἄρα indicates it is a conclusion that is evident in the premise, it is the German allerdings.
1 Corinthians 5:11
11 The negative explanation of Paul’s command is supplemented by the positive. The former pertains to the open sinners in the world, the latter to the open sinners in the church. Now, however, I wrote you not to associate, if one who is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a man not even to eat.
Because the aorist ἔγραψα is identical with the aorist found in v. 9, and both refer to Paul’s lost letter, therefore “now, however,” is not temporal but logical. The translation of the R. V. is therefore unacceptable: “But now I write”; the translation of the A. V. is better: “I have written,” although this may mean: in the present letter, which would not be correct. Paul repeats the prohibition “not to associate” from the quotation used in v. 9 and thus places it before his positive explanation as he placed it before the negative. The original prohibition of his first letter stands and is even emphasized in this letter.
He does not need again to quote in full: “not to associate with fornicators,” because in v. 10 he has already advanced to the principle involved. As far as open sinners in the world are concerned, the principle “not to associate” applies “not entirely” but, as already stated, only in part; but as far as open sinners in the church are concerned, it does apply “entirely.”
Hence he states positively: Keep aloof altogether, “if one who is called a brother be” an open sinner. And now Paul adds to the previous list: “be a fornicator, or covetous,” etc., and names a full list of six in order to make his meaning entirely plain. He cannot say merely “if one be a brother,” for men of this type, although they outwardly belong to the congregation, are not really “brethren.” He must add: one “who is called a brother,” who has the ὄνομα or name of “brother” but is lacking what this name implies. Here the principle is to be applied “entirely”: no association of any kind with such a man. To the types of open sinners previously named Paul adds λοίδορος, “a reviler” or “railer,” one who is incorrigibly given to the vice of abusing the character of other people; and μέθυσος, “a drunkard.”
The condition of expectancy ἐὰνἧ intimates that the church may expect cases of this kind. It is needless to say that this expectation has been amply fulfilled in the entire history of the church. Even open sinners who offend against the first table of the law are found such as idolaters, and this word is not to be understood only in the sense of Eph. 5:5: “a covetous man, which is an idolater,” but also in the sense that men who bow before Christ’s altar are determined at the same time to bow before non-Christian altars. Estius comments on the old days in Corinth: “Either from the heart, or led by fear, or by the will to please, or by some other reason, he mingles with the rites of unbelievers in order either to worship an idol by a mere outward act or to eat of idol sacrifices.” In his Kirchengeschichte Hauck reports that in Germany Columba saw baptized and unbaptized people at a beer offering to Wotan. And Gregory of Tours: “The report comes to us that many Christians run both to the churches, and—which is terrible to say—do not remain away from the rituals of demons.”
All these devotees of sin against God and against man are summed up in “such a man”: “with such a man not even to eat,” 2 John 10. Even common social fellowship is to cease. “Not to associate with” = “not even to eat with,” i.e., in the real sense to avoid “entirely.” And μηδέ, nicht einmal, not even, indicates a climax. “Not even to eat with such a man” has no reference to the ancient Agape, for here the expression is absolute, without a single modifier.
As far as men of the world are concerned, men who never professed Christianity and who live in some glaring sin, Paul does not say: “Associate with them in every way”; but: “Associate with them only in certain restricted ways.” This means that we may associate with them in such ways (business and the like) that do not make us partakers of their sin and guilt, lead to the impression that we condone their sins and evil ways, or subject us to contamination in any way. But those who profess the faith and then again fall into open sin against either the first or the second table of the law are in an entirely different class. It is not their vice or their idolatry that put them into this separate class but their turning traitor to the faith—they have become renegades. “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. It has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire,” 2 Pet. 2:20–22. To treat them in a familiar way would make the impression also upon their minds that having become such dogs and sows is not so terrible after all.
Yet the ultimate reason for this seeming harshness must not be lost sight of, 5:5. From the action and the bearing of the congregation toward him the expelled man is to realize the gravity of his sin and his precarious spiritual condition so that, if possible, where all other means have failed, this realization may yet have a saving effect.
1 Corinthians 5:12
12 Two striking facts validate what Paul has just said, hence he writes γάρ. For what have I to do with judging those without? Do not you judge those within whereas those without God judges? These facts are undeniable. By putting them into the form of questions the truth they contain will strike with fuller force. The difference between the sinners that are “of the world,” v. 10, and those “that are called brethren,” v. 11, is strongly emphasized by stating their respective relation to the church; the former are “those without,” the latter “those within,” the adverbs are substantivized by the Greek article. “To judge” is a vox media, i.e., to bring them before a Christian judgment bar and to pronounce a favorable or an unfavorable verdict upon them.
And τίμοι (ἐστί) = “what business is this of mine?” namely κρίνειν, an infinitive subject, R. 944. The evident answer is: “It is none of my business.”
The second question emphasizes the first and makes it clearer. When Paul speaks of himself (singular) in the first question he does so only in order to exemplify. Therefore he now adds “you” (plural), the Corinthians. “Do not you judge those within whereas those without God judges?” That is, indeed, the true state of affairs. “Those within” are all those who profess the name of Christ with us and call themselves our brethren. We ourselves belong to those within. And all of us are judged by our brethren, namely as to whether we really belong within or not, whether we really are the brethren we profess to be.
In his question Paul merely states the fact that we do thus judge each other; yet this fact implies our right to judge thus. The evidence on which we judge is that of lip and life, word or profession and actual conduct. Christians never have the right to judge a member’s heart. Herzensrichterei is interference with God’s prerogative. If either the profession of the lips or the evident conduct of the life violates the faith, and if all efforts of the church which has applied the law and the gospel have failed, the sinner must be judged as no longer belonging within. Thus to judge those within, to determine who rightly belongs within and who does not, is our only business. It is ours in the nature of the case since no true congregation could be organized or could continue to exist without this judging.
1 Corinthians 5:13
13 The situation is entirely different regarding those without. We certainly do not need to judge those that are without, for they do not even attempt to come in. God will attend to them, and it is our business to leave them in God’s hands. When Paul says in 6:2 “that the saints shall judge the world” he by no means forgets that he has just written that we have no business to judge those without. He is here speaking of disciplinary judging. The world or those without are not subject to the discipline of the church and to judging connected with discipline.
It is God alone who disciplines the world with judgments. But the world as well as the church are subject to the Word and to every pronouncement of that Word. Thus we who have that Word do judge also the world whenever we utter any of the pronouncements or the verdicts of the Word.
Having made clear these decisive facts concerning those subject to and those not subject to our discipline, Paul in a rather brusque and peremptory way returns to the case with which he began in 5:1. Remove the wicked man from yourselves! In Deut. 17:7 and 24:7 nearly identical words are used: καὶἐξαρεῖςτὸνπονηρὸνἐξὑμῶναὑτῶν, so that one is inclined to think that, while Paul does not quote, he at least appropriates this ancient injunction. The verb ἐξάρατε is the same verb as ἀρθῇ in v. 2, but is strengthened by ἐκ. The aorist imperative is sharp: no if or and—act! “The wicked man” names him according to the generally wicked character of his sin and thus again touches the great principle involved in the case and thereby fitly concludes Paul’s instruction on the matter.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.