Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 5:1

"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 (ASV)

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.