John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 5:11

"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." — 1 Corinthians 5:11 (ASV)

If he who is called a brother—in the Greek, there is a participle without a verb. Those who view this as referring to what follows derive a forced meaning here, one that is at variance with Paul’s intention. I confess, indeed, that it is a just sentiment and worthy of particular notice—that no one can be punished by the decision of the Church except one whose sin has become a matter of public knowledge; but these words of Paul cannot be interpreted to mean that.

What he means, then, is this: “If anyone is considered a brother among you, and at the same time leads a wicked life, one that is unbecoming a Christian, avoid his company.” In short, being called a brother here means a false profession, which has no corresponding reality.

Furthermore, he does not make a complete enumeration of crimes but merely mentions five or six as examples. Then, afterwards, under the expression such an one, he sums up the whole. He does not mention any except those that come to human knowledge, for inward impiety and anything secret do not fall under the judgment of the Church.

It is uncertain, however, what he means by an idolater. For how can someone who has professed Christ be devoted to idolatry? Some are of the opinion that there were some among the Corinthians at that time who only partially received Christ and, in the meantime, were nevertheless involved in corrupt superstition, just as the Israelites of old, and later the Samaritans, maintained a kind of worship of God but at the same time polluted it with wicked superstitions.

For my part, I rather understand it to refer to those who, while they held idols in contempt, nevertheless gave a pretended homage to them, with the aim of gratifying the wicked. Paul declares that such persons ought not to be tolerated in Christian society, and not without good reason, since they thought so little of trampling God’s glory underfoot.

We must, however, observe the circumstances of the case. While they had a Church there where they could worship God in purity and have the lawful use of the sacraments, they entered the Church in such a way that they did not renounce the profane fellowship of the wicked.

I make this observation so that no one may think that we should employ equally severe measures against those who, while currently dispersed under the tyranny of the Pope, pollute themselves with many corrupt rites. These indeed, I maintain, generally sin in this respect. I acknowledge they ought to be sharply dealt with and diligently urged, so that they may eventually learn to consecrate themselves wholly to Christ; but I dare not go so far as to consider them worthy of excommunication, for their case is different.

With such an one not even to take food. First, we must ascertain whether he is addressing the whole Church here, or merely individuals. I answer that this is indeed said to individuals, but at the same time, it is connected with their common discipline, for the power of excommunication is not given to any individual member, but to the entire body.

Therefore, when the Church has excommunicated someone, no believer ought to receive him into intimate fellowship with him; otherwise, the authority of the Church would be brought into contempt if each individual were free to admit to their table those who have been excluded from the Lord's table. By partaking of food here is meant either living together or familiar association in meals. For if, on going into an inn, I see someone who has been excommunicated sitting at a table, there is nothing to prevent me from dining with him, as I do not have the authority to exclude him. What Paul means is that, as far as it is in our power, we are to shun the company of those whom the Church has cut off from her communion.

The Roman antichrist, not content with this severity, has burst forth with interdicts, prohibiting anyone from helping someone who has been excommunicated with food, fuel, drink, or any other necessities of life. Now, that is not strictness of discipline, but tyrannical and barbarous cruelty, which is altogether at variance with Paul’s intention. For he does not mean that he should be counted as an enemy, but as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:15), because in putting this public mark of disgrace upon him, the intention is that he may be filled with shame and brought to repentance. And with this dreadful cruelty, if God is pleased to permit, they rage even against the innocent. Now, granting that there are sometimes those who are not undeserving of this punishment, I affirm, on the other hand, that this kind of interdict is altogether unsuitable for an ecclesiastical court.