Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 5

Introduction to 1 Corinthians Chapter 5

Chapter 5

This chapter is entirely occupied with a notice of an offense that existed in the church at Corinth, and with a statement of the measures which the apostle expected them to pursue in regard to it. He had been informed of the existence of this offense, probably by those of the house of Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11), and there is reason to suppose that they had not even alluded to it in the letter they had sent to him asking advice (see 1 Corinthians 7:1; compare to the Introduction).

The apostle (1 Corinthians 5:1) reproves them for tolerating a species of licentiousness that was not tolerated even by the heathens. He reproves them (1 Corinthians 5:2) for being puffed up with pride even while this scandal existed in their church. He ordered them immediately to purify the church by removing the incestuous person (1 Corinthians 5:4–5) and exhorted them to preserve themselves from the influence that a single corrupt person might have, operating like leaven in a mass (1 Corinthians 5:6–7).

Then, lest they should mistake his meaning and suppose that by commanding them not to keep company with licentious persons (1 Corinthians 5:9), he meant to say that they should withdraw from all intercourse with the heathen, who were known to be idolaters and corrupt, he says that the former command was not designed to forbid all intercourse with them (1 Corinthians 5:9–12). Instead, he meant his injunction now to extend particularly to those who were professed members of the church.

They were not to cut off all intercourse with society at large because it was corrupt. If any man professed to be a Christian and yet was guilty of such practices, they were to disown him (1 Corinthians 5:11). It was not his province, nor did he assume it, to judge the heathen world that was without the church (1 Corinthians 5:12). However, this was entirely consistent with the view that he had a right to exercise discipline within the church, on those who professed to be Christians. Therefore, they were bound to put away that wicked person.

It is reported. This is stated in Greek as "It is heard." There is a rumor. That rumor had been brought to Paul, probably by the members of the family of Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11).

Commonly. The Greek word is holōs, meaning everywhere. It is a matter of common fame. It is so public that it cannot be concealed, and so certain that it cannot be denied. This was an offense, he informs us, that even the heathen would not justify or tolerate. Therefore, the report had spread not only in the churches but even among the heathen, to the great scandal of religion. When a report obtains such circulation, it is certainly time to investigate it and correct the evil.

That there is fornication. (See notes on Acts 15:20).

The word is here used to denote incest, for the apostle immediately explains the nature of the offense.

And such fornication, etc. This refers to an offense that is not tolerated or known among the heathen. This greatly aggravated the offense: that in a Christian church a crime should be tolerated among its members that even gross heathens would regard with abhorrence. That this offense was regarded with abhorrence even by the heathens has been abundantly proved by quotations from classic writers (see Wetstein, Bloomfield, and Whitby).

Cicero says of the offense, expressly, that "it was an incredible and unheard-of crime" (Pro Cluentio 6.6). When Paul says that it was not so much as named among the Gentiles, he doubtless uses the word onomazetai in the sense of named with approbation, tolerated, or allowed.

The crime was known in a few instances, chiefly among princes and rulers, but it was nowhere regarded with approbation and was always treated as abominable wickedness. All that the connection requires us to understand by the word "named" here is that it was not tolerated or allowed; it was treated with abhorrence. It was therefore more scandalous that it was allowed in a Christian church.

Whitby supposes that this offense, tolerated in the church at Corinth, gave rise to the scandals circulated among the heathen respecting the early Christians—namely, that they allowed licentious intercourse among the members of their churches. This reproach was circulated extensively among the heathen, and the primitive Christians took great pains to refute it.

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

The term fornication in this context is related to what may be called "impurity." The act described, that one should have his father's wife, finds a parallel condemnation in Deuteronomy 27:20.

And ye are puffed up.

You are filled with pride, and with a vain conceit of your own wisdom and purity, despite the existence of this enormous wickedness in your church. This does not mean that they were puffed up, or proud on account of the existence of this wickedness, but they were filled with pride nonetheless, or in spite of it.

They ought to have been a troubled people. They should have mourned; and should have given their first attention to the removal of the evil.

But instead of this, they had given indulgence to proud feeling and had become elated with a vain confidence in their spiritual purity. Men are always elated and proud when they have the least occasion for it.

And have not rather mourned, and so on. You have not rather been so afflicted and troubled as to take the proper means for removing the offence.

The word mourn here is taken in that large sense. You have not been so much afflicted—so troubled with the existence of this wickedness—as to take the proper measures to remove the offender.

Acts of discipline in the church should always commence with mourning that there is occasion for it. It should not be anger, or pride, or revenge, or factional spirit, which prompts to it. It should be deep grief that there is occasion for it; and tender compassion for the offender.

Might be taken away. By excommunication. He should not, while he continues in this state, be allowed to remain in your communion.

For I verily. But I, whatever it may cost me, however you may esteem my interference, and whatever personal ill-will may result towards me, have adjudged this case to be so flagrant as to demand the exercise of discipline. Since the church to which it belongs has neglected it, I use the authority of an apostle and of a spiritual father in directing it to take place. This was not a formal sentence of excommunication; but it was the declared opinion of an apostle that such a sentence should be passed, and an injunction on the church to exercise this act of discipline.

As absent in body. Since I am not personally present with you, I express my opinion in this manner. I am absent in body from you and cannot, therefore, take those steps in regard to it which I could were I present.

But present in spirit. My heart is with you; my feelings are with you; I have a deep and tender interest in the case; and I judge as if I were personally present. Many suppose that Paul by this refers to a power that was given to the apostles, though at a distance, to discern the real circumstances of a case by the gift of the Spirit (2 Kings 5:26; 2 Kings 6:12).

(Whitby, Doddridge, etc.) But the phrase does not demand this interpretation. Paul meant, probably, that though he was absent, his mind and attention had been given to this subject; he felt as deeply as though he were present and would act in the same way. He had, in some way, been fully informed of all the circumstances of the case and felt it was his duty to express his views on the subject.

Have judged already. (Margin: Determined, kekrika.) I have made up my mind; have decided, and do decide. That is, he had determined what ought to be done in the case. It was a case in which the course that ought to be pursued was plain, and on this point his mind was settled. What that course should be, he states immediately.

As though I were present. As though I had personal knowledge of the whole affair and were with you to advise. We may be certain that Paul had the fullest information about this case and that the circumstances were well known. Indeed, it was a case about the facts of which there could be no doubt. They were everywhere known (1 Corinthians 5:1), and there was no need, therefore, to attempt to establish them by formal proof.

In the name, etc. By the authority, or on behalf, or acting by his commission or power (2 Corinthians 2:10). See the notes on Acts 3:6.

This does not refer to Paul alone in declaring his opinion, but means that they were to be assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, and that they were to proceed to exercise discipline by his authority. The idea is that the authority to administer discipline is derived from the Lord Jesus Christ, and is to be exercised in his name, and to promote his honor.

When ye are gathered together. Or, "You being assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus." This is to be connected with the previous words, and means the following:

1. That they were to be assembled for the purpose of administering discipline; and
2. That this was to be done in the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

And my spirit (1 Corinthians 5:3) means as if I were with you; that is, with my declared opinion, knowing what I would advise if I were one of you, or I being virtually present with you by having delivered my opinion. It cannot mean that Paul's soul would be really present with them; but that, knowing his views and feelings, what he would do, and his love for them, they could act as if he were there.

This passage proves that discipline belongs to the church itself; and so deep was Paul's conviction of this, that even he would not administer it without their concurrence and action. And if Paul would not do it, and in a case, too, where bodily pains were to be inflicted by miraculous agency, assuredly no other ministers have a right to assume the authority to administer discipline without the action and the concurrence of the church itself.

With the power, etc. This phrase is to be connected with the following verse. "I have determined what ought to be done. The sentence which I have passed is this: You are to be assembled in the name and authority of Christ. I shall be virtually present. And you are to deliver such a one to Satan, by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ." That is, it is to be done by you; and the miraculous power which will be demonstrated in the case will proceed from the Lord Jesus. The word power (dunamei) is commonly used in the New Testament to denote some miraculous and extraordinary power; and here it evidently means that the Lord Jesus would exert such a power in the infliction of pain and for the preservation of the purity of his church.

To deliver. This is the sentence which is to be executed. You are to deliver him to Satan, etc.

Unto Satan. Beza, and the Latin Fathers, suppose that this is only an expression of excommunication. They say, that in the Scriptures there are but two kingdoms recognized—the kingdom of God, or the church, and the kingdom of the world, which is regarded as under the control of Satan; and that to exclude a man from one is to subject him to the dominion of the other.

There is some foundation for this opinion; and there can be no doubt that excommunication is here intended, and that, by excommunication, the offender was in some sense placed under the control of Satan. It is further evident that it is here supposed that by being thus placed under him the offender would be subject to corporal inflictions by the agency of Satan, which are here called the "destruction of the flesh." Satan is elsewhere referred to as the author of bodily diseases.

Thus in the case of Job (Job 2:7). A similar instance is mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:20, where Paul says he had delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. It may be observed here, that though this was to be done by the concurrence of the church, as having a right to administer discipline, yet it was directed by apostolic authority; and there is no evidence that this was the usual form of excommunication, nor ought it now to be used. There was evidently miraculous power evinced in this case, and that power has long since ceased in the church.

For the destruction of the flesh. We may observe here:

1. that this does not mean that the man was to die under the infliction of the censure, for the object was to recover him; and it is evident that, whatever he suffered as the consequence of this, he survived it, and Paul again instructed the Corinthians to admit him to their fellowship (2 Corinthians 2:7).
2. It was designed to punish him for licentiousness of life—often called in the Scriptures one of the sins or works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19)—and the design was that the punishment should follow in the line of the offence, or be a just retribution, as punishment often does.

Many have supposed that, by the "destruction of the flesh," Paul meant only the destruction of his fleshly appetites or carnal affections, and that he supposed that this would be effected by the act of excommunication. But it is very evident from the Scriptures that the apostles were imbued with the power of inflicting diseases or bodily calamities for crimes.

See Acts 13:11 and 1 Corinthians 11:30. What this bodily malady was, we have no means of knowing. It is evident that it was not of very long duration, for when the apostle exhorts them again to receive him (2 Corinthians 2:7), there is no mention made of his suffering then under it.

This was an extraordinary and miraculous power. It was designed for the government of the church in its infancy, when everything was fitted to show the direct agency of God; and it ceased, doubtless, with the apostles. The church now has no such power. It cannot now work miracles; and all its discipline now is to be moral discipline, designed not to inflict bodily pain and penalties, but to work a moral reformation in the offender.

That the spirit may be saved. That his soul might be saved; that he might be corrected, humbled, and reformed by these sufferings, and recalled to the paths of piety and virtue. This expresses the true design of the discipline of the church, and it ought never to be inflicted but with a direct intention to benefit the offender and to save the soul. Even when he is cut off and disowned, the design should not be vengeance or punishment merely, but it should be to recover him and save him from ruin.

In the day of the Lord Jesus. The day of judgment, when the Lord Jesus shall come and shall collect his people to himself.