John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 5

It is generally reported that there is among you. Since those contentions originated, as has been observed, in presumption and excessive confidence, he most appropriately proceeds to mention their diseases, the knowledge of which should humble them. First of all, he shows them what enormous wickedness it is to allow one of their number to have an illicit connection with his mother-in-law.

It is not certain whether he had seduced her from his father as a prostitute, or whether he kept her under pretense of marriage. This, however, does not much affect the matter at hand; for, as in the former case, there would have been an abominable and execrable whoredom, so the latter would have involved an incestuous connection, abhorrent to all propriety and natural decency.

Now, so that he may not seem to charge them based on doubtful suspicions, he says that the case he brings forward is well known and in general circulation. For it is in this sense that I understand the particle ὅλως (generally) as indicating that it was no vague rumor, but a matter well known and published everywhere, causing great scandal.

From his saying that such a kind of whoredom was not named even among the Gentiles, some are of the opinion that he refers to the incest of Reuben (Genesis 35:22), who, similarly, had an incestuous connection with his mother-in-law. They are accordingly of the opinion that Paul did not mention Israel because a disgraceful instance of this kind had occurred among them, as if the annals of the Gentiles did not record many incestuous connections of that kind!

This, then, is an idea that is quite foreign to Paul’s intention. For in mentioning the Gentiles rather than the Jews, he intended rather to heighten the aggravation of the crime.

He says, in effect: “You permit, as though it were a lawful thing, an enormity which would not be tolerated even among the Gentiles—indeed, it has always been regarded by them with horror and looked upon as a monstrous crime.”

Therefore, when he affirms that it was not named among the Gentiles, he does not mean by this that no such thing had ever existed among them or was not recorded in their annals (for even tragedies have been founded upon it). Instead, he means that it was held in detestation by the Gentiles as a shameful and abominable monstrosity, for it is a beastly lust which destroys even natural modesty.

Should anyone ask, “Is it just to reproach all with the sin of one individual?” I answer that the Corinthians are accused, not because one of their number has sinned, but because, as is stated afterwards, they encouraged by connivance a crime that deserved the severest punishment.

And you are puffed up. “Are you not ashamed,” he says, “to glory in what affords so much occasion for humiliation?” He had observed previously that even the highest excellence gives no just ground for glorying, since mankind have nothing of their own, and it is only through the grace of God that they possess any excellence (1 Corinthians 4:7). Now, however, he attacks them from another quarter. “You are,” he says, “covered with disgrace: what ground have you, then, for pride or haughtiness? For there is an amazing blindness in glorying in the midst of disgrace, in spite, as it were, of angels and men.”

When he says, and have not rather mourned, he argues by way of contrast, for where there is grief, there is no more glorying. It may be asked: “Why should they have mourned over another man’s sin?” I answer, for two reasons:

1. First, because of the communion that exists among the members of the Church, it was fitting that all should feel hurt at so deadly a fall by one of their number.
2. Secondly, when such an enormity is committed in a particular Church, the perpetrator of it is an offender in such a way that the whole society is, in a manner, polluted.

For as God humbles the father of a family in the disgrace of his wife or his children, and a whole kindred in the disgrace of one of their number, so every Church should consider that it contracts a stain of disgrace whenever any base crime is committed in it.

Moreover, we see how the anger of God was kindled against the whole nation of Israel on account of the sacrilege of one individual — Achan (Joshua 7:1).

It was not as if God had been so cruel as to take vengeance on the innocent for another man’s crime; but, as in every instance in which anything of this nature has occurred among a people, there is already some sign of His anger, so by correcting a community for the fault of one individual, He distinctly indicates that the whole body is infected and polluted with the contagion of the offense.

Hence we readily infer that it is the duty of every Church to mourn over the faults of individual members as domestic calamities belonging to the entire body. And certainly, a pious and dutiful correction originates from our being inflamed with holy zeal due to displeasure at the offense, for otherwise severity will be felt to be bitter.

That he might be taken away from among you. He now states more clearly what he finds fault with in the Corinthians — remissness, since they connived at such an abomination.

Hence, too, it appears that Churches are given this power — that whatever fault there is within them, they can correct or remove it by strictness of discipline. It also appears that those are inexcusable who are not vigilant to ensure filth is cleared away.

For Paul here condemns the Corinthians. Why? Because they had been remiss in the punishment of one individual. Now, he would have accused them unjustly if they had not had this power. Hence, the power of excommunication is established from this passage.

On the other hand, since Churches have this mode of punishment entrusted to them, those who do not make use of it when it is required commit sin, as Paul shows here. For otherwise, he would act unfairly toward the Corinthians in charging them with this fault.

I truly, etc. As the Corinthians were failing in their duty, having condemned their negligence, he now shows what ought to be done. So that this stain may be removed, they must cast out this incestuous person from the community of believers. He then prescribes, as a remedy for the disease, excommunication, which they had sinfully delayed for so long.

When he says that he had, while absent in body, already determined this, he severely rebukes in this way the negligence of the Corinthians, for there is an implied contrast here. It is as if he had said: “You who are present ought to have applied a remedy for this disease by now, having it every day before your eyes, and yet you do nothing; while I, for my part, even though absent, cannot endure it.” To prevent anyone from alleging that he acted rashly in forming a judgment from such a great distance, he declares himself to be present in spirit, meaning by this that the line of duty was as clear to him as if he were present and saw the matter with his own eyes.

Now it is important to observe what he teaches regarding the method of excommunication.

When you are gathered together and my spirit—that is, when you are gathered together with me, but in spirit, for they could not meet together in terms of bodily presence. He declares, however, that it would be the same as if he were personally present. It is to be carefully observed that Paul, though an Apostle, does not himself, as an individual, excommunicate according to his own pleasure, but consults with the Church, so that the matter may be transacted by common authority.

He, indeed, takes the lead and shows the way, but in taking others as his associates, he makes it quite clear that this authority does not belong to any one individual. However, since a crowd never accomplishes anything with moderation or seriousness unless guided by counsel, a Presbytery—that is, an assembly of elders—was appointed in the ancient Church. By common consent, they had the authority to judge the case first.

From them the matter was brought before the people, but it was as something already judged. Whatever the case, it is entirely contrary to the ordinance of Christ and His Apostles—to the order of the Church, and even to fairness itself—for this right of excommunicating anyone he may choose at his pleasure to be put into the hands of any one man.

Let us then note that in excommunication this limitation must be observed: this part of discipline is to be exercised by the common counsel of the elders and with the consent of the people, and this is a remedy against tyranny. For nothing is more contrary to the discipline of Christ than tyranny, to which you open a wide door if you give one man the entire power.

In the name of our Lord. For it is not enough that we assemble, if it is not in the name of Christ; for even the wicked assemble for impious and nefarious conspiracies. Now for an assembly to be held in Christ’s name, two things are required:

1. first, that we begin by calling on His name;
2. secondly, that nothing is attempted except in conformity with His word.

Only then do people make a favorable start in anything they undertake to do: when they call upon the Lord with their heart, praying to be governed by His Spirit and for their plans, by His grace, to be directed to a successful outcome. Furthermore, this happens when they ask at His mouth, as the Prophet says (Isaiah 30:2)—that is, when, after consulting His oracles, they surrender themselves and all their plans to His will in unreserved obedience.

If this is appropriate even in the smallest of our actions, how much less should it be omitted in important and serious matters, and least of all when we are dealing with God’s business rather than our own? For example, excommunication is an ordinance of God, not of humans; therefore, on any occasion when we are to use it, where should we begin if not with God?

In short, when Paul exhorts the Corinthians to assemble in the name of Christ, he does not simply require them to use Christ’s name or to confess Him with their mouth (for even the wicked can do that). Instead, he requires them to seek Him truly and with the heart; furthermore, by this, he indicates the seriousness and importance of the action.

He adds, with the power of our Lord; for if the promise is true, As often as two or three are gathered together in my name, I am in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20), it follows that whatever is done in such an assembly is a work of Christ.

From this we infer how important excommunication, rightly administered, is in the sight of God, since it rests upon the power of God. For that saying also must be fulfilled: Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (Matthew 18:18).

However, just as this statement ought to fill scorners with considerable alarm, so too, faithful pastors, as well as the Churches generally, are by this admonished with what a devout spirit they should approach their work in a matter of such importance. For it is certain that the power of Christ is not bound to human inclination or opinions, but is associated with His eternal truth.

To deliver to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Since the Apostles had been equipped with this power, among others, to deliver over to Satan wicked and obstinate persons, and used him as a scourge to correct them, Chrysostom and those who follow him view these words of Paul as referring to a chastisement of that kind. This is consistent with the interpretation usually given of another passage concerning Alexander and Hymeneus (1 Timothy 1:20). They think to deliver over to Satan means nothing more than the infliction of a severe punishment upon the body.

But when I examine the whole context more closely, and at the same time compare it with what is stated in the Second Epistle, I reject that interpretation as forced and conflicting with Paul’s meaning, and understand it simply as excommunication. For delivering over to Satan is an appropriate expression for indicating excommunication, because as Christ reigns in the Church, so Satan reigns out of the Church, as Augustine also remarked in his sixty-eighth sermon on the words of the Apostle, where he explains this passage.

Therefore, since we are received into the communion of the Church and remain in it on the condition that we are under Christ's protection and guardianship, I maintain that whoever is cast out of the Church is, in a way, delivered over to the power of Satan, for he becomes an alien and is cast out of Christ’s kingdom.

The clause that follows, for the destruction of the flesh, is used to soften the statement. For Paul’s meaning is not that the person who is chastised is given over to Satan to be utterly ruined or to be given up to the devil in perpetual bondage, but that it is a temporary condemnation—and not only that, but one that will be beneficial.

Since the salvation of the spirit, like its condemnation, is eternal, Paul understands the condemnation of the flesh to mean temporal condemnation. The principle is: “We will condemn him in this world for a time, so that the Lord may preserve him in His kingdom.”

This provides an answer to the objection by which some try to dismiss this explanation. Since the sentence of excommunication is directed against the soul rather than the physical person, they ask how it can be called the destruction of the flesh.

My answer, then, is (as I have already partly stated) that the destruction of the flesh is contrasted with the salvation of the spirit simply because the former is temporal and the latter is eternal. In this sense, the Apostle in Hebrews 5:7 uses the expression the days of Christ’s flesh to mean the course of His mortal life.

Now, the Church, in severely chastising offenders, does not spare them in this world, so that God may spare them.

If anyone wishes for further information regarding the rite of excommunication—its causes, necessity, purposes, and limitation—let him consult my Institutes.