1 Corinthians 5

David Lipscomb Commentary On 1 Corinthians 5 1 Corinthians 5:1 to 1 Corinthians 6:20 CENSURE OF THE OF A GROSS CASE OF INCEST1 Corinthians 5:1-8 1 It is actually reported—[It was a matter of common noto¬riety, talked among the people generally and caused great scandal.] that there is fornication among you,— With the confluence of strangers and of commerce, were associated the luxury and licentiousness which gave the name of Corinth an infamous notoriety, and which connected in the case of the Temple of Aphrodite with religious rites, requiring licentious acts in its devotees, it is not surprising that such sins would be committed by some of those who professed to be followers of Christ. For sins that are common and popular in a community will trouble a church in that community. and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles,— Here is a type of licentiousness in the church that was not tol¬erated among the heathen. [It was held in detestation by them as a shameful and abominable monstrosity.] that one of you hath his father’ s wife.—It is probable that the father had been guilty of the folly of marrying a woman better suited in age for his son. But it was a gross outrage upon chastity and virtue, and yet the church was tolerating it and glorying over it. [The marriage of a son to his step¬mother was forbidden among the Jews under the penalty of death (Leviticus 18:8 Leviticus 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30 Deuteronomy 27:20); and it was a violation of the Roman law and held in abhorrence by them. From the complete silence as to the crime of the woman, it is inferred that she was a heathen.]

2 And ye are puffed up,—Looseness in faith, heresy, divi¬sion and strife breed indifference to morality and virtue, and open the way for all shames and sins to follow. So these people in their departures from the faith had admitted all types of immorality. This case was probably among the wealthy and influential, or belonged to an influential party, and instead of condemning him for the sin, they were arrogant, defied criticism, and did not feel that his course was a source of sorrow and shame for the persons sinning and for the church so dis-graced and humiliated by the crime. [It does not mean that they were puffed up because of this outrage, but in spite of it. It ought to have humbled them to the dust, and yet they re¬tained their self-satisfied complacency. Their morbid self-im¬portance, which made them so intolerant of petty wrongs (6: 7), made them tolerant of deep disgrace.] and did not rather mourn,—[The church should have risen as one man, and gone into a common act of humiliation and mourning, like a family for the death of one of its members. It should have been a day of repentance, on which the whole church before the Lord deplored the scandal committed, and cried to him to lead them to expel the guilty person from the fellowship in irrepressible horror at his conduct.] that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you.—That he should be refused fellowship or recognition in the church. Loss of fellowship involved loss of recognition and association among Christians. It should be considered a great disgrace and shame yet to be excluded from the membership of the church of Christ. It is noteworthy that God always holds the man the more guilty party in such sins. It is to the shame of society that this order has been reversed in modern times.

3 For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit,— [Paul was fully informed by the Spirit of God in all the circumstances, and instructed by him in the way he should act.] have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing,—His spirit was present with them and he had already decided as to the guilt and condemnation of him who had done the deed. [This is a remarkable assertion of apostolic power. After reading this letter, they would know that he who had wrought miracles with such power among them was spiritually and effectually present, and weak though he was in personal appearance and speech, was able to exercise sharp discipline on the whole body, unless they submitted to the voice of God through his mouth.]

4 in the name of our Lord Jesus,—Acting for and in the stead of the Lord Jesus. [The phrase includes, on the one hand, the denial that the thing was done by virtue of his own authority; and on the other, the claim of the right to act as the representative of Christ.] ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,—When they were gathered together, Paul himself present in spirit gave his decision in this letter, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the church acts according to his directions, its action is clothed with the power of Christ. The act of the body in such case is the act of Christ. [A question of much importance is, Does the apostle by the words, “ ye being gathered together,” mean that he waits for their assent to his ruling in this matter? Most assuredly not. The whole tone, not only the passage which is now before us, but of the whole epistle up to this point, is that he would have them look upon him as the apostle— the special messenger of Christ—standing towards them in the place of Christ. There is not the faintest hint of making the pronouncing of the sentence dependent on the vote of the assembly which is to be held, as if the apostle’ s decision could be annulled by the contrary opinion of a majority.

For his part everything is decided, and with his apostolic competency he has judged to deliver over the offender. There will be joined to Paul, in the assembly which he convokes, “ the whole church” (Acts 15:22), to take part in this act.]

5 to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.—What the deliverance of the body to Satan may mean, how the flesh is destroyed, and what the day of the Lord Jesus is, are questions of doubt and have produced much dis¬cussion. It probably means that he was separated from the fel¬lowship of the church, from all association with the brethren in Christ, regarded and treated as a heathen; that by these in¬fluences he might be brought to realize the enormity of his sin, and turn from fleshly lusts, and be restored to a life of ho¬liness, and to the fellowship of the church that he might at last be saved. The church by the direction of Paul put him away from among them (2 Corinthians 2:10), and at a later period he directs them to forgive and comfort the one who had been separated from the fellowship, supposed to be the same per¬son, “ lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow.” (2 Corinthians 2:7.) The exclusion from the fellowship of the saints and the privileges of the house of God is a serious and awful matter. When one has been excluded from the fellowship of the church, Christians should make him feel that he forfeits the esteem and associa¬tion of all the members of the church, yet he should be warned and admonished as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:15.) [Disorderly conduct must be dealt with by the church in the way the Lord appoints. Immorality is not to be tolerated among the followers of Christ. The whole action of the church is moral and spiritual, and the extremest infliction it can impose in any case is exclusion from the fellowship. The necessity for exercising such discipline is for the following reasons: (1) The honor of Christ, which is sadly impeached when open sin is allowed among those who profess to be his followers. To make Christ a minister of sin is a grievous offense. (2) The welfare of the offender himself is never to be lost sight of. The wise, kindly, deliberate action of the church may save the erring one. And hence, however humiliating and terrible the exclusion may have been, the door is always left open for return. Its object, so far as the offender is concerned, is his recovery, and if he repents and comes to a right state of mind, nothing stands in the way of his restoration to the fellowship. (3) The welfare of the church requires that the transgressors shall be dealt with. For sin is a spreading leprosy. It may begin in a small obscure place, but unless speedily arrested will increase and diffuse itself till the whole body is infected. A moral gangrene must be cut out.] 6 Your glorying is not good.—The glorying and self-justifi¬cation were not good. If not put away from among them, it would soon work the corruption of the whole body. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? — As a small quantity of leaven pervades the entire mass of dough and communicates its nature to the whole of that with which it comes in contact, so the least sin tolerated affects the whole church, and communicates its nature to the whole of that with which it comes in contact. It is therefore applied to all sin voluntarily tolerated by the individual or the church. To be indifferent to grave misbehavior is to become partly re¬sponsible for it, and to lower the standard of Christian living. [Here the stress of the argument lies less in the evil example of the offender than in the fact that toleration of this conduct implies concurrence (Romans 1:32), and debases the standard of moral judgment and instinct. To be indifferent to grave mis¬behavior is to become partly responsible for it. A subtle atmo¬sphere, in which evil readily springs up and is diffused, is the result. The leaven that was infecting the Corinthian church was a vitiated public opinion.]

7 Purge out the old leaven,—Here is an allusion to the order given by Moses (Exodus 12:15 Exodus 12:20 Exodus 13:7) to remove all leaven from the Jewish house before the Passover, and carried out with such scrupulous care that on the fourteenth day of the month they searched with lighted candles even the darkest places in their houses to see whether any remained. that ye may be a new lump,—The position of Christians is analogous to that of Israel, and they should put away the evil and purge out the leaven of sin that is among them that they may be a pure unleavened lump of holiness. even as ye are unleavened.—They were purged of the leaven of evil in coming into Christ. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ:—As when the passover lamb was sacrificed they must put away the leaven, so Christ is our passover, a perpetual sacrifice for us, so we must put from us the leaven of evil as the children of God.

8 wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,—Since Christ is our passover, sanctified for us, let us keep the feast perpetually. That is, live holily. The whole life of the Christian should be a joyous and pure feast of services to God in sincerity and truth, none of the old leaven of heathenism being retained in the body, the church. [To the Christian, Christ is a perpetual sacrifice, an ever-present paschal Lamb, demanding and enforcing constant vigilance and unceasing cleanliness. The individual must put away every sinful habit of the old life. The church must purge itself of all whose lives are sources of corruption.] neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness,— [Malice is ill will in the mind; wickedness is ill will expressed in ac¬tion.] but with the unleavened bread of sincerity—[The word “ sincere” sets forth before the mind the material image from which the spiritual quality takes its name. The honey free from the smallest particle of wax, pure and transparent. The word used here conveys a similar idea. It is derived from the custom of judging the purity of liquids or the texture of cloths by holding them between the eye and the sun. What is here set forth as necessary to the Christian character is a quality which can stand this extreme test, and does not need to be seen only in an artificial light. It brings before us a pure transparent sincerity which is genuine; and acceptance of Christ which is real, and which is rich in real results.] and truth.—[This means far more than veracity.

In its subjective sense, it means the inward state which answers to truth; fullness, straightforwardness, integrity of purpose; that moral and spiritual condition which conforms to the law and character of God. All corresponds to an unsullied, uncontam¬inated, and genuine Christian character.]

OF THEIR OF A GIVEN AS TO WITH 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 9 I wrote unto you in my epistle—Some think he means that he had so written them in this letter. This the expres¬sion would not allow, for he intends to modify now directions hitherto given. So Paul had doubtless written a letter to them before this, in which he had given the directions here noted. to have no company with fornicators;—A fornicator is one who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried person, but the word is frequently used to denote all unlawful intercourse. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 19:9.) To have company with is to associate with and treat one as worthy of companionship and association. The Christian is not to treat the guilty person as such. The object, no doubt, is to make the fornicator feel the dis¬grace and shame of his course and bring him to repentance.

10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world,— He now modifies the command so as to apply to fornicators in the church and not to those in the world. or with the covetous—The covetous are those who seek to obtain what is another’ s in an unlawful way. The man who sacrifices honesty to the acquisition of wealth is heinous in the sight of God. He cannot be a Christian and should not be recognized as such. and extortioners,—An extortioner is one who by power or threats takes what is not his own or more than is right. The man who takes advantage of another’ s poverty, or his necessities, to obtain exorbitant gain, is an extortioner. or with idolaters;—Prior to the preaching of the gospel in Corinth, by Paul, all the inhabitants therein, with the exception of a few Jews, were idolaters. for then must ye needs go out of the world:— He did not mean to so treat those guilty of the sins just mentioned. They were so common among the people that if they refused to associate with them it would be like going out of the world, withdrawing as a recluse, having no association or dealing with mankind.

11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.—Personal association with those claiming to be Christians guilty of these sins is prohib¬ited. [Christians must tolerate no such sins among them¬selves ; they must exclude from the social circle any one who, bearing the name of Christ, indulges in these vices of the heathen world. The church is to be the light of the world and not the recipient of the world’ s darkness.]

The question is sometimes raised as to whether the eating means the Lord’ s Supper or a common meal. The context plainly shows that it means the latter. The association here forbidden with the sinner calling himself a Christian is per¬mitted to men of the world guilty of the same sins. But we are not permitted to eat the Lord’ s Supper with the sinners without. Therefore, this cannot refer to the Lord’ s Supper, but must refer to an ordinary meal. Then, too, to eat a com¬mon meal with a man was to acknowledge him as a worthy equal. The Jews would not eat with the publicans and sin¬ners, and strongly condemned Jesus for doing so.

12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without?—[They should have easily understood his meaning, for it was well known to them that] he had nothing to do with judging those not members of the church. [The phrase “ them that are without” is frequently used by Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:12; Colossians 4:5), and their awful condition he graphically describes as follows: “ Ye were at that time separate from Christ, alien¬ated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12.)] Do not ye judge them that are within?—As churches they were to look after and deal with those within that they might be kept from evil influences. [Their own practice should have saved them from misunderstanding him. It is possible that his meaning had been purposely wrested by interested persons to bring discredit upon his teaching concerning fornicators.]

13 But them that are without God judgeth.—They were to leave those without to the judgment of God. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.—In pursuance of the truth set forth here, he commands them to put from them this wicked person, who had taken his own father’ s wife. There was no choice left the church. It must do just what Paul under the guidance of the Spirit directed them to do. There was no voting, but obedience to plain directions in carrying out the case.

Verse 1 1 Corinthians 5This entire chapter is devoted to the case of the incestuous member of the church in Corinth, the woman involved having apparently no connection with the church; as no rebuke or teaching of any kind concerning her is recorded. It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1) “Paul was vitally concerned about a new morality!"[1] The old morality of the Corinthians had already been discredited, exposed and revealed in the degradations and shameful debaucheries which invariably resulted from it. The new morality had come to Corinth in the preaching of Jesus Christ. Chastity, sobriety, honesty, truthfulness and kindness were among the features of the new ethic which came to mankind through Jesus Christ, that ethic being the only “new morality” ever heard of on earth. “Paul was also relevant in his preaching!"[2] He pointed the finger of divine condemnation squarely at the offender, also making the whole congregation to blame for the complacency with which they had looked upon so brazen a resurgence of the old morality. Fornication … is here used as a general term for all sexual vice, incest being the specific sin here. For further elaboration of this subject, see my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 325. “Shocked as Paul was at this sin, he was even more shocked by the attitude of the Corinthian church,"[3] which condoned it and went on being puffed up with pride. Johnson thought that they might have been “even proud of their liberty”;[4] and Guthrie also believed that their leaving such a glaring sin uncondemned was “Presumably on the ground of their `liberty’ in Christ."[5]Not even among the Gentiles … does not mean that incest was not practiced by the Gentiles, but that such vice was unacceptable among them. The feelings, even of pagans, were shocked by it; and Cicero spoke of such a crime (near Corinth), saying, “Oh, incredible wickedness, and, except in this woman’s case, unheard of in all experience."[6]Hath his father’s wife … “Hath refers not to just one trespass, but to a life of sin."[7] Speculations on the circumstances attending this sin, as to the question of whether the father was alive, or divorced, or the question of whether the incestuous couple were married or not, are all fruitless. The relationship itself was sinful, no matter what the circumstances; and if it had been profitable to know more of the details of this sordid incident, it is safe to conclude that Paul would have provided them. Some have identified the man who “suffered the wrong” (2 Corinthians 7:12) as the father in this case; and; if correct, this would prove that the father was alive.

Farrar was of this opinion.[8] Lipscomb expressed the opinion of McGarvey and many others that, “From the complete silence as to the crime of the woman, it is inferred that she was a heathen."[9][1] Donald S. Metz, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 346. [2] Ibid., p. 347. [3] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 49. [4] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 601. [5] Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1058. [6] F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 19, p. 165. [7] F. W. Grosheide, The New International Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), p. 120. [8] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 166. [9] David Lipscomb, Commentary on First Corinthians (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1935), p. 72. Verse 2 And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this thing might be taken away from among you.Puffed up … Barnes understood this thus: “They were not puffed up on account of this wickedness, but they were filled with pride notwithstanding it, or in spite of it."[10]Mourn … “This is the word that is used in mourning for the dead”;[11] and when such a sinful contradiction of truth and righteousness as this case of incest exists in a congregation of believers, it should be an occasion of the most intense sorrow. What an incongruous thing was that prideful boasting of the Corinthians contrasted with this wretched immorality tolerated among them! [10] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), p. 83. [11] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 49. Verse 3 For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus.The question of Paul’s coming to Corinth had just been mentioned (1 Corinthians 4:21); but by the first clause here, Paul said, “I do not have to be present in Corinth to judge such a shameful sin as this. My spirit is already with you in the general assembly which I now order you to convene for the purpose of throwing the offender out.” In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ … may be applied to a number of things in this passage; but the principal thrust of the words is to invoke the authority of Christ himself (through the apostle) for casting out the offender. They must not seek to separate from him privately, or in any hushed-up manner; the whole church was commanded to pronounce the apostolic judgment on the sinful member. Verse 5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.Deliver … to Satan … This was the apostolic sentence; but the full meaning of it is not fully clear, there being a great many things that people simply do not know concerning what is here revealed. Some things are crystal clear. Paul denounced this sin in the strongest language found in the New Testament; and such a judgment could have been pronounced and executed only by an apostle of Christ. There is a hint that Paul expected that the man would die upon the announcement of his judgment, in the same manner as Ananias and Sapphira had died in Jerusalem. The salvation held out as a hope for the condemned was not envisioned as following his return to the congregation, but as something he would receive “in the day of the Lord Jesus,” a certain reference to the final judgment. If these implications should be allowed, this exceedingly severe judgment “might have been an act of mercy, as well."[12] See my Commentary on Acts, under Acts 5:5. The opinion that this offender repented and came back into the congregation is founded upon 2 Corinthians 7:12; but there is little certainty that this application is correct. If that is what happened, then what became of “the destruction of the flesh” enunciated in this judgment? The frequent opinion that “The sinful man (was) delivered to Satan, to suffer physical affliction, to bring him to repentance and turn out for the good of his soul,"[13] is another example of what the passage is thought to teach. Another thing that is certain, with reference to this, was pointed out by Adam Clarke: No such power as this remains in the Church of God; none such should be assumed; and the pretensions to it are as wicked as they are vain. It was the same power by which Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead, and Elymas the sorcerer struck blind. Apostles alone were entrusted with it.[14]Even an apostle like Paul exercised such power and authority only upon rare occasions, another instance being that of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20). [12] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), p. 114. [13] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 91. [14] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1831), Vol. VI, p. 213. Verse 6 Your glorying is not good. know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?Your glorying … Their glorying failed to take any note at all of the cancer of immorality in their very midst. A little leaven … Although there are exceptions, leaven in the New Testament usually refers to some evil principle, in this case unrebuked immorality, which was fully capable of destroying the whole church. This would account for the severity of the judgment imposed. Verse 7 Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ.Ye are unleavened … This is a figure for “you are not contaminated with sin.” Despite the sinful lapses visible in the church, the action of their being cleansed in the blood of Christ was constant and effectual. Serious sins would be punished and purged from the Lord’s church;, and the essential purity of it was affirmed even in this moment of her shameful deficiency. This purity was not of themselves, but of Christ “in whom” they continued to be. CHRIST; OUR In the above verse, Paul affirmed that Christ is our passover; but, as in most analogies, there are points of likeness and unlikeness. I. Points of likeness: A. In both the Jewish passover and the passover of Christians (who is Christ), there is the death of a sinless, blameless victim (John 14:30 John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15). B. In both, there is the design of deliverance from the wrath of God; in the Jewish Passover, it was from the destruction of the death angel, and for Christians it is from God’s eternal wrath (Romans 1:18). C. In both, deliverance carne through the vicarious death, in their case, that of the lamb, in our case, that of Christ who died for us (Romans 3:25 Romans 5:6; Matthew 20:28; 1 Peter 3:18). D. In both, the slain victim became the food of the redeemed. The Jews actually ate the Passover lamb; and Christians partake of Christ who is their spiritual food (John 6:53). E. In both, a personal participation on the part of the redeemed was an absolute requirement. The lamb had to be slain for every family; each member had to eat; the blood was sprinkled on every door. Every man must be “in Christ” to be saved (1 Corinthians 12:13). F. In both, the line of demarcation between the saved and lost is clear and emphatic. Egyptians did not partake of the Passover. The evil men of the world do not partake of Christ. G. In both, there is a pledge of fellowship. Eating together is one of the oldest bonds of fellowship; and, in both dispensations, God made use of this instrument to cement the bonds of fellowship among his people. II. Points of unlikeness: A. There is a contrast in the redemptions procured, one being temporal and earthly, the other being heavenly and eternal. B. There is a contrast in the victims provided. Is not a man of more value than a sheep? C. There is a contrast in the efficacy of the blood offered, that of animals being unable to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4), but the blood of Christ providing remission of sins (Hebrews 9:14). D. There is a contrast in that which was purged out, in the case of the Jews being the old leaven of actual bread, but in the case of Christians the purging of sin from the hearts of those saved. III. The entire institution of the Passover was typical of the entire institution of Christianity: A. The Passover lamb, sacrificed the first day, was fulfilled by the crucifixion of Christ at the very hours the lambs were slain. B. The lamb was a type of the person of Christ in that it was innocent, died vicariously, was a male of the flock, and without blemish, and in that not a bone of it was broken (Psalms 34:20). C. Just as the Passover was slain and eaten in Jerusalem so Christ suffered, died, and rose again in the same city. D. The Passover was typical of the Lord’s supper in some ways, though not in others. Both were divinely instituted, both were commemorative, both were continuative, moving for millenniums through history; both began a new kingdom, the Passover that of the Jews; the Lord’s Supper distinguished the kingdom of Christ; and in both cases the actual beginning of the kingdom was a little later than the institution of the rite. Who but God could have so designed the religious economy of Israel that all of it would have served to typify and identify the Christ who should come into the world? Verse 8 Wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.Keep the feast … It seems incredible to this student that anyone would apply this to keeping the Jewish Passover. “We are obliged to keep the feast, the feast of unleavened bread."[15] This whole paragraph is absolutely metaphorical; for, when Paul commanded the Corinthians to “purge out thy old leaven,” he referred to purging out sin. Therefore “feast” in this place has the meaning of Christian life and fellowship. Farrar read it “Keep the feast of Christ’s resurrection in the spirit of holiness."[16] Barnes interpreted it as “Let us engage in the service of God by putting away evil."[17] “Keeping the feast suggests the continuous life of the Christian, a day-by-day walking in holiness, strength and joy."[18] There is not a reference here to the Lord’s Supper specifically; but of course it is included in the larger sphere of the entire Christian pilgrimage. Not with old leaven … This is a reference to the old morality of the Corinthians, under the figure of the Jews’ actions at Passover. All sexual vice, as well as malice and other forms of wickedness, are specific examples of what Paul meant by “leaven.” Unleavened bread … refers to the new life in Christ from which the old works of the flesh have been purged and replaced by “sincerity and truth.” [15] F. W. Grosheide, op. cit., p. 126. [16] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 168. [17] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 88. [18] Donald S. Metz, op. cit., p. 355. Verse 9 I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.In my epistle … This most probably refers to another epistle Paul had written to the Corinthians, but which was lost; and, since they misunderstood it, perhaps it was lost providentially. Skilled efforts to make this a reference to previous passages in this same epistle are unconvincing. The crux of Paul’s teaching here is that when he had commanded the Corinthians not to keep company with fornicators (in that lost letter), the congregation had taken it to mean that they were not to associate withANYBODY guilty of that sin, whether in the church or out of the church. Paul here stated that he did not mean that “at all”; and, if he had meant that, they could have obeyed him only by leaving the present world! What a commentary this is upon the depraved condition of Corinth and the whole world of that era. Fornicators … covetous … extortioners … idolaters … Significantly, Paul here extended the prohibition to include association with any grossly wicked people, specifically the four classes mentioned, who might be called “brethren.” Furthermore, despite the fact of its being allowable for Christians to associate with the wicked in the necessary business and commerce of the world, such persons having no connection with Christianity, this is definitely not meant to encourage such associations. Every time a child of God is in the company of the wicked, even in cases where it is necessary and allowable, he runs a certain risk; and there is no way that he should be satisfied and comfortable in such associations. Wall, as quoted by Macknight, said: It is an everlasting rule that a conscientious Christian should choose, as far as he can, the company, intercourse, and familiarity of good men, and such as fear God; and avoid, as far as his necessary affairs will permit, the conversation and fellowship of such as Paul here describes.[19]ENDNOTE: [19] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles and Commentary (Grand Rapids. Baker Book House, 1969), p. 79. Verse 11 But as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.But as it is … or “Now I write …” as in the English Revised Version margin (1885). I wrote unto you … carries the meaning of “what I meant when I wrote to you.” The blanket rule laid down here requiring the Christian to forego any association with unfaithful Christians was stated thus by Russell: Have no familiar intercourse with one that is named a brother but is false to his profession; withdraw from all associations indicating brotherhood. He does not mean that Christians should go out of the world; monastic seclusion is not for a moment contemplated.[20]ENDNOTE: [20] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 410. Verse 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.Despite what was said under 1 Corinthians 5:5 of the unique authority involved in delivering the sinner “to Satan,” it may not be supposed that putting away evil men out of the Christian fellowship has no relevance now. However it is to be done, it must be done. Morris said, “Paul’s main point is that the church must not tolerate the presence of evil in its midst, and this is clearly of permanent relevance."[21]Paul also guarded against any thought that the wicked “without” shall escape judgment; God will judge them. Regarding the last verse here, Macknight wrote: The apostle wrote this and the preceding verse to show the Corinthians the reason why, after commanding them to pass so severe a sentence on the man, he said nothing to them of the woman who was guilty with him. The discipline of the church was not to be exercised on persons out of it. Hence it appears that this woman was a heathen.[22][21] Leon Morris, Tyndale Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), p. 93. [22] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 80.

“THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE "

Chapter Five IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To understand the need for proper church discipline

2. To understand the nature of church discipline

SUMMARY Having dealt with the problem of division in the first four chapters, Paul now addresses the problem of immorality in the church at Corinth. He describes the particular case at hand, one which even pagan Gentiles would find shameful (1 Corinthians 5:1). Rebuking them for being “puffed up” instead of mourning (1 Corinthians 5:2), Paul then instructs them to “deliver such a one to Satan”, giving them reasons why this action is necessary (1 Corinthians 5:3-8). Clarifying what may have been written in an unknown earlier epistle, Paul concludes by limiting towards whom such action is to be taken, and describing how it is to be carried out in practice (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

OUTLINE I. THE PROBLEM OF IN THE CHURCH AT CORINTH (1 Corinthians 5:1-2) A. THE CASE AT HAND (1 Corinthians 5:1)1. Something not even the Gentiles would approve! (1 Corinthians 5:1 a) 2. A man was living with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1 b)

B. HOW THE WERE IT (2)1. They were “puffed up” (1 Corinthians 5:2 a) 2. Rather than mourning that such conduct might result in the removal of the offender (1 Corinthians 5:2 b)

II. FOR DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM (1 Corinthians 5:3-13) A. HOW TO CHURCH (1 Corinthians 5:3-5 a)1. Must exercise judgment, as Paul though present has already done (1 Corinthians 5:3) 2. When assembled together in the name of Jesus, deliver such a one to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:4-5 a)

B. WHY CHURCH IS NEEDED (1 Corinthians 5:5-8)1. To save the sinner (1 Corinthians 5:5 b) a. By destroying the flesh (its pride and works) b. That his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 2. To save the church (1 Corinthians 5:6-8) a. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6) b. Christ, our “passover”, should be kept with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

C. CHURCH (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)1. Not to be exercised toward those who are of the world (1 Corinthians 5:9-10) 2. But towards brethren in Christ who remain in sin, with such don’t even eat (1 Corinthians 5:11) 3. For God judges those outside the church, while we must judge those inside (1 Corinthians 5:12-13 a) 4. The nature of church discipline: “put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:13 b)

REVIEW FOR THIS CHAPTER

1. List the main points of this chapter- The Problem Of Immorality In The Church At Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)

• Instructions For Dealing With This Problem (1 Corinthians 5:3-13)

2. What was the nature of the immorality that existed in the church at Corinth? (1 Corinthians 5:1)- A man had his father’s wife

3. What was the attitude of the church in this regard? (1 Corinthians 5:2)- They were “puffed up”

4. Why does a church “deliver such a one to Satan”? (1 Corinthians 5:5)- For the destruction of the flesh

• That his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord

5. Why should a church be diligent in exercising church discipline? (1 Corinthians 5:6)- A little leaven leavens a whole lump

6. Who is the “passover” for Christians? (1 Corinthians 5:7)- Christ

7. How should we observe our “passover”? (1 Corinthians 5:8)- With sincerity and truth

8. Towards whom is church discipline to be administered? (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)- Those in the church who do not repent; not those in the world

9. Who has the responsibility of judging whom? (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)- God judges those outside the church; the church is to judge its own

10. What expressions may help explain what it means to “deliver such a one to Satan”? (1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 5:13)- “not to keep company”

• “not even to each with such a person”
• “put away from yourselves that wicked person”

Questions by E.M. Zerr For 1st Corinthians Chapter 51. Was the report mentioned only incidentally known? 2. What was the sin reported ? 3. By what comparison does Paul show its baseness ? 4. What woman is the guilty one? 5. Do you take this to mean his mother? 6. What was their attitude toward the situation ? 7. How should the brethren have felt? 8. If they had what should they have done? 9. In what sense was Paul present with them? 10. What had he already done in the case? 11. Would his judgment have been different if present? 12. In what name was their work to be done ? 13. Could the work be done in a private meeting? 14. When they gathered whose spirit would be there ? 15. Whose power is behind this arrangement? 16. Does this verse require a special meeting? 17. State what word indicates their action. 18. To whom was the man to be given? 19. Where is such territory to be found? 20. Tell what was to be destroyed. 21. Was it to be physical action on the body? 22. What further effect was sought by the discipline? 23. To what does “ day of the Lord” refer? 24. What did Paul think of their glorying? 25. Tell what article he used for illustration. 26. Is his statement true literally? 27. How is it true spiritually? 28. They were to purge out what? 29. That they might be what ? 30. To what 0. T. ordinance does this language allude? 31. What constitutes the leaven in this case? 32. In what character is Christ here represented? 33. Must he be slain repeatedly? 34. How can we keep the feast? 35. With what must we NOT keep the feast? 36. Are malice and wickedness identical? 37. State difference between sincerity and truth. 38. With whom are we not to company? 39. Does this refer to people of the world? 40. Give reason for your yes or no. 41. What 3 classes of sinners does Paul here mention? 42. Tell your impression of “ to keep company.” 43. With what class are we not to keep thi3 company? 44. Are these ehuTch members? 45. To whom does “ not to eat” apply? 46. Can we rightly apply it to men of the world ? 47. Does “ eat” refer to the Lord’ s table? 48. What jurisdiction does Paul have over “ outsiders” ? 49. Does this apply to other disciples also ? 50. How or by whom will the “ outsiders” be judged? 51. State the final order Paul gives them.

1 Corinthians 5:1

1 Corinthians 5:1. Commonly is from HOLOS, and Robinson defines it in this passage, “everywhere, commonly,” and Thayer’s definition is virtually the same. The meaning is that the condition was so well known that the fact was not questioned by anyone. Fornication is from PORNEIA, and Thayer gives the one word in our verse as his definition. But he adds the following information historically: “Properly of unlawful intimacy in general. That this meaning must be adopted will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Corinthians 6 how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected.” While on this phase of the subject, it will be well to read the “general remarks” at the beginning of chapter one. Since the ordinary evil of fornication was so prevalent and tolerated so liberally, it makes the attitude which Paul describes all the more significant. A popular phrase, “living in adultery,” is of human coinage, and has no scripture foundation; therefore, we shall examine the word have in this verse. It is from the Greek word ECHO, and two full pages are used in the lexicon of Thayer in his definitions and explanations. The definitions (the parts in italics) include, “to have; to hold in the hand; to have possession of; to hold fast, keep; to regard, consider, hold as; to own, possess.” Thus the word can be seen to refer to the attitude of a man toward something, without necessarily considering what legal or moral principles are involved. In the present passage, Thayer explains the word to mean, “to have (use) a woman (unlawfully) as a wife.” The Lord requires his people to recognize the laws of the land, and they do not regard the fleshly union as constituting the marriage relation as does God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5-6; 1 Corinthians 6:16), and that is why Thayer inserts the word “unlawfully” into his explanation. The Gentiles (or heathen), with all their leniency toward immoral conduct, did not endorse such a practice as was being done by this man, and that is the sense in which they would not so much as name it among themselves. Father’s wife means the man’s stepmother. The necessary inference is that his father had remarried, to a younger woman than his son’s mother. and the difference in age had induced this woman to become intimate with her husband’s son.

1 Corinthians 5:2

1 Corinthians 5:2. Puffed up means their pride over the superiority they imagined they had as we saw in the preceding chapter. Even this shameful case of fornication had not moderated their self-esteem. They should have mourned or lamented over the wicked character, and resolved that he would be put from among them.

1 Corinthians 5:3

1 Corinthians 5:3. Paul was an inspired man and could speak with authority. This enabled him to form the correct judgment on the present case even though absent ‘and before any hearing had been conducted.

1 Corinthians 5:4

1 Corinthians 5:4. The sentence which Paul is going to pronounce will be in the name of Christ, which means by his authority. The first specification is that the action is to be done when ye are gathered together. This teaches that no final act of discipline can be scripturally done except at a meeting of the church. It does not even authorize that a “special meeting” be called for the purpose. The rulers of a congregation may designate the particular meeting at which it will be done, according to their judgment in the case.

But when the appointment is made, it must be set at one of the times “when ye are gathered together.” Paul informs them that his spirit will be with them in this great and solemn action, which will be true of all congregational actions that are according to apostolic teaching. Moreover, this action would be backed up by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that it cannot be considered as an act of personal revenge on the part of the brethren.

1 Corinthians 5:5

1 Corinthians 5:5. Now comes the verdict of the apostle which must be made that of the congregation also, in order that it may be the action of “the many” (2 Corinthians 2:6). To deliver is defined by Thayer, “to give over into one’s power or use.” He explains it at this place as follows: “The phrase seems to have originated from the Jewish formulas of excommunication, because a person banished from the theocratic [church and state] assembly was regarded as deprived of the protection of God and delivered up to the power of the devil.” Destruction of the flesh is explained by Thayer as follows: “Said of the external ills and troubles by which the lusts of the flesh are subdued and destroyed.” The idea is that by expelling him from the congregation, it may cause him to realize the terrible condition he is in on account of having lived for the gratification of his fleshly desires, and the result will be his “crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Galatians 5:24). That will put him in condition to be restored to the fellowship of the saints, where he can so live that his spirit (his immortal being) may be saved when the Lord comes again. Another serious truth taught in this passage, is that when a person is excluded from the fellowship of the church, he is then in Satan’s territory whose inhabitants have no promise of salvation in the world to come.

1 Corinthians 5:6

1 Corinthians 5:6. The Corinthians were so full of pride over their supposed strength, that they seemed to think a single case of wickedness would not hurt them. The illustration of leaven is according to what everyone knows about that product. A woman would not use as much leaven by bulk as the amount of bread she wished to produce, for the small lump deposited in the mass would work until “the whole was leavened” (Matthew 13:33). Likewise, one bad character who is permitted to remain in a congregation will finally defile the whole body. (See 1 Corinthians 15:33.)

1 Corinthians 5:7

1 Corinthians 5:7. Paul has introduced the subject of leaven for the purpose of illustration. There were enough Jews in the congregation to know about the regulations under the law of Moses regarding leaven, and even the Gentiles had seen enough of the Jewish practices to understand something on the subject. At the time of the feast of the Passover and the seven days following, the Jews were required to “put away leaven out of your houses” (Exodus 12:15), in order that they might keep their feast acceptably. Paul uses the language of that occasion for his instructions to the Corinthians. Purge out therefore the old leaven corresponds to “put away leaven out of your houses” with the Jews.

The leaven to be purged out of the Corinthian church was the wicked fornicator. That ye may be a new lump means the church will be free from the leaven of this wicked man, and in so doing they would become a body fit for the service of Christ, having become unleavened. The Jews were to bring about this condition that was free from leaven, because a creature had been slain and prepared to be used in the Passover feast, and it could be eaten only “with unleavened bread” (Exodus 12:8). Likewise, Christ has been slain and made a passover for us, and we should be prepared to partake thereof with a condition that has been purged from the leaven of sin.

1 Corinthians 5:8

1 Corinthians 5:8. The old leaven refers to the case of fornication that had been working in the lump or congregation. All other leaven likewise was to be kept out of the body. In naming the various kinds of leaven, Paul includes malice which was not present in the case of the fornicator as far as there is any indication. This denotes that the apostle is extending the illustration so as to apply to the entire service of Christ. The feast may be said to include all of the activities of the life that Christians are to live under Christ; it is all a rich feast.

The passover of Christ’s body and blood was consummated but once, it is true, as far as the physical ceremony was concerned, but the spiritual partaking thereof is to be continuous. It will be well at this place to corroborate the idea just set forth by quoting from 1 John 1:7 : “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” This walking in the light is equivalent to maintaining a condition described in our present verse as unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 5:9

1 Corinthians 5:9. I wrote refers to an epistle Paul wrote previously, for up to this verse there has been nothing said on the subject at hand. Colossians 4:16 speaks of an epistle sent to the Laodiceans, so we know that he wrote some letters that were not intended to become a part of the New Testament compilation. In the epistle referred to here, Paul gave instructions not to company with fornicators. We do not know what occasioned that letter nor why that particular instruction was given. The three words come from the Greek word , and Thayer defines it, “to mix up together; to keep company with, be intimate with, one.” Further comments will be made when we come to verse 11.

1 Corinthians 5:10

1 Corinthians 5:10. This verse is given to clarify a statement in the former epistle as to whom they were to avoid in their associations. The world is so full of such characters as are named, that if Christians were required to avoid all of them, they would have to go out of the world; that is, cease to live in any populated country.

1 Corinthians 5:11

1 Corinthians 5:11. The preceding verse designated who were not meant by the restrictions, this one will specify who is to be so treated. Now I have written denotes that the apostle is giving his latest instruction on the subject. Man that is called a brother means one who had been a member of the congregation, but on account of the evils named had become unworthy of the term “brother,” and hence one with whom they should not keep company. (See the notes on this phrase at verse 9.) The refusal to associate with this man is to be carried to the extent that they were not even to eat with him. Some teach this means eating the Lord’s Supper, but the apostle has just explained that his instructions do not apply to men of the world; they apply only to those who had been members of the church. This theory mentioned would mean that people of the world were permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the apostle has just explained that his instructions do not apply to men of the world; they apply only to those who had been members of the church. This theory mentioned would mean that people of the world were permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper, which we know is not true.

To eat is from which Thayer defines, “to eat with, take food together with,” so the word refers to the physical act of partaking of material food. But such an act itself meant more in old times than it does today; read the following passages. Genesis 26:30 Genesis 31:46; 1 Kings 13:15; Proverbs 23:6; Matthew 24:49; Mark 2:16; Acts 11:3; Galatians 2:12’ From these we may see that the act of eating with others had a social significance formerly that it does not have today. However, the same principle holds good now, and the restriction not to company with means any act or association that would indicate a social recognition. If a man has been excluded on such charges as are named in the present passage, others are forbidden to be intimate with him, for such an association would encourage him to continue in his sinful life, thinking himself to be as good as those who associate with him.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

1 Corinthians 5:12-13. What have I to do means “l have nothing to do with, judging them outside the church.” Hence the church was not expected to be further responsible officially for those who were already of the world, or who would become inhabitants of it by being excluded from the church. The Lord would then be the sole judge of them. But those in the fellowship of the church are subject to the discipline of the congregation. The whole discussion of the case is closed with the direct command to put the wicked person from among them. Nothing is said about the woman, hence we must infer she was not a member of the church and so it would not be responsible.