1Cor 5:9-12 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 9. I wrote unto you . I have written. εγραψα. This word may either refer to this epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them; but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word. In an epistle , εντηεπιστολη. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators--as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators--suppose that this refers to the same epistle, and that the apostle means to say that in the former part of this epistle he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that τη, here, is used for ταυτη, and appeal to the kindred passages in ; . Many others--as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, etc.--suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, viz.: (1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation --one that would strike the great mass of men. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle. (2.) It is the very expression which he uses in , where he is referring to this epistle as one which he had sent to them. (3.) It is not true that Paul had in any former part of this epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have intercourse with them. (4.) It is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he laboured many years; founded many churches; and had frequent occasion to write to them. (5.) We know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, etc., are referred to in the Old Testament; and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament. (6.) In , he expressly makes a distinction between the epistle which he was then writing and the former one. "But now," i.e., in this epistle, "I have written εγραψα to you," etc., an expression which he would not use if referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction. (7.) This opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, "The epistle of which he here speaks is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful." If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply, (a.) that there is no evidence that these writings were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines, as inspired or uninspired, see ; and the same thing may have occurred in his writings. (b.) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea, it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless. (c.) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspirations and then have been suffered to be lost--as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world. (d.) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even the Saviour himself, , have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost, than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed, than that numerous discourses of Him "who spake as never man spake" should be lost to the world? (e.) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved, and is in our hands. That any inspired books have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost; and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them, than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed. Not to company , etc. Not to associate with. See ; . This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now proceeds to give, relates to a different matter --the proper degree of intercourse with those who were in the church. (c) "epistle" (*) "fornicators" "The impure"

1 Corinthians 5:9-12

Verse 9. I wrote unto you. I have written. εγραψα. This word may either refer to this epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them; but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word.

In an epistle, εντηεπιστολη. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators--as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators--suppose that this refers to the same epistle, and that the apostle means to say that in the former part of this epistle 1Cor 5:2 he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that τη, here, is used for ταυτη, and appeal to the kindred passages in Rom 16:2; Col 4:6, 1Thes 5:27, 2Thes 3:3,4. Many others--as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, etc.--suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, viz.:

(1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation --one that would strike the great mass of men. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle.

(2.) It is the very expression which he uses in 2Cor 7:8, where he is referring to this epistle as one which he had sent to them.

(3.) It is not true that Paul had in any former part of this epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have intercourse with them.

(4.) It is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he laboured many years; founded many churches; and had frequent occasion to write to them.

(5.) We know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, etc., are referred to in the Old Testament; and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament.

(6.) In 1Cor 5:11, he expressly makes a distinction between the epistle which he was then writing and the former one. "But now," i.e., in this epistle, "I have written εγραψα to you," etc., an expression which he would not use if 1Cor 5:9 referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction.

(7.) This opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, "The epistle of which he here speaks is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful." If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply,

(a.) that there is no evidence that these writings were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines, as inspired or uninspired, see 1Cor 7; and the same thing may have occurred in his writings.

(b.) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea, it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless.

(c.) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspirations and then have been suffered to be lost--as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world.

(d.) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even the Saviour himself, Jn 21:25, have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost, than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed, than that numerous discourses of Him "who spake as never man spake" should be lost to the world?

(e.) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved, and is in our hands. That any inspired books have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost; and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them, than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed.

Not to company, etc. Not to associate with. See Eph 5:11; 2Thes 3:14. This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now 1Cor 5:11 proceeds to give, relates to a different matter --the proper degree of intercourse with those who were in the church.

(c) "epistle" Eph 5:11 (*) "fornicators" "The impure" Verse 10. Yet not altogether, etc. In my direction not "to company" with them, I did not mean that you should refuse all kinds of intercourse with them; that you should not treat them with civility, or be engaged with them in any of the transactions of life, or in the ordinary intercourse of society between man and man, for this would be impossible; but that you should not so associate with them as to be esteemed to belong to them, or so as to be corrupted by their example. You are not to make them companions and friends.

With the fornicators. Most heathen were of this description, and particularly at Corinth. See the Introduction to this epistle.

Of this world. Of those who are out of the church; or who are not professed Christians.

Or with the covetous. The avaricious; those greedy of gain. Probably his direction in the former epistle had been that they should avoid them.

Or extortioners. Rapacious persons; greedy of gain, and oppressing the poor, the needy, and the fatherless, to obtain money.

Or with idolaters. All the Corinthians before the gospel was preached there worshipped idols.

Then must ye needs, etc. It would be necessary to leave the world. The world is full of such persons. You meet them everywhere. You cannot avoid them in the ordinary transactions of life, unless you either destroy yourselves, or withdraw wholly from society. This passage shows,

(1.) that that society was full of the licentious and the covetous, of idolaters and extortioners. Rom 1:1.

(2.) That it is not right either to take our own lives to avoid them, or to withdraw from society and become monks; and, therefore, that the whole monastic system is contrary to Christianity. And,

(3.) that it is needful we should have some intercourse with the men of the world; and to have dealings with them as neighbours, and as members of the community. How far we are to have intercourse with them is not settled here. The general principles may be,

(1.) that it is only so far as is necessary for the purposes of good society, or to show kindness to them as neighbours and as members of the community.

(2.) We are to deal justly with them in all our transactions.

(3.) We may be connected with them in regard to the things which we have in common--as public improvements, the business of education, etc.

(4.) We are to endeavour to do them good, and for that purpose we are not to shun their society. But,

(5.) we are not to make them our companions; or to associate with them in their wickedness, or as idolaters, or covetous, or licentious; we are not to be known as partakers with them in these things. And for the same reason we are not to associate with the gay in their gaiety; with the proud in their pride; with the fashionable in their regard to fashion; with the friends of the theatre, the ball-room, or the splendid party, in their attachment to these amusements. In all these things we are to be separate; and are to be connected with them only in those things which we may have in common with them, and which are not inconsistent with the holy rules of the Christian religion.

(6.) We are not so to associate with them as to be corrupted by their example; or so as to be led by that example to neglect prayer and the sanctuary, and the deeds of charity, and the effort to do good to the souls of men. We are to make it a great point that our piety is not to suffer by that intercourse; and we are never to do anything, or conform to any custom, or to have any such intercourse with them as to lessen our growth in grace; divert our attention from the humble duties of religion; or mar our Christian enjoyment.

(*) "fornicators" "The impure" (+) "extortioners" "Oppressors" Verse 11. But now. In this epistle. This shows that he had written a former letter.

I have written unto you. Above. I have designed to give this injunction that you are to be entirely separated from one who is a professor of religion, and who is guilty of these things.

Not to keep company. To be wholly separated and withdrawn from such a person. Not to associate with him in any manner.

If any man that is called a brother. Any professing Christian; any member of the church.

Be a fornicator, etc. Like him who is mentioned, 1Cor 5:1.

Or an idolater. This must mean those persons who while they professed Christianity still attended the idol feasts, and worshipped there. Perhaps a few such may have been found who had adopted the Christian profession hypocritically.

Or a railer. A reproachful man; a man of coarse, harsh, and bitter words; a man whose characteristic it was to abuse others; to vilify their character, and wound their feelings. It is needless to say how much this is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and to the example of the Master, "who when he was reviled, reviled not again."

Or a drunkard. Perhaps there might have been some then in the church, as there are now, who were addicted to this vice. It has been the source of incalculable evils to the church; and the apostle, therefore, solemnly enjoins on Christians to have no fellowship with a man who is intemperate.

With such an one no not to eat. To have no intercourse or fellowship with him of any kind; not to do anything that would seem to acknowledge him as a brother; with such an one not even to eat at the same table. A similar course is enjoined by John, 2Jn 1:10,11. This refers to the intercourse of common life, and not particularly to the communion. The true Christian was wholly to disown such a person, and not to do anything that would seem to imply that he regarded him as a Christian brother. It will be seen here that the rule was much more strict in regard to one who professed to be a Christian than to those who were known and acknowledged heathens. The reasons may have been:

(1.) The necessity of keeping the church pure, and of not doing anything that would seem to imply that Christians were the patrons and friends of the intemperate and the wicked.

(2.) In respect to the heathen, there could be no danger of its being supposed that Christians regarded them as brethren, or showed to them any more than the ordinary civilities of life; but in regard to those who professed to be Christians, but who were drunkards, or licentious, if a man was on terms of intimacy with them, it would seem as if he acknowledged them as brethren, and recognised them as Christians.

(3.) This entire separation and withdrawing from all communion was necessary in these times to save the church from scandal, and from the injurious reports which were circulated. The heathen accused Christians of all manner of crime and abominations. These reports were greatly injurious to the church. But it was evident that currency and plausibility would be given to them if it was known that Christians were on terms of intimacy and good fellowship with heathens and intemperate persons. Hence it became necessary to withdraw wholly from them; to withhold even the ordinary courtesies of life; and to draw a line of total and entire separation. Whether this rule in its utmost strictness is demanded now, since the nature of Christianity is known, and since religion cannot be in so much danger from such reports, may be made a question. I am inclined to the opinion that the ordinary civilities of life may be shown to such persons; though certainly nothing that would seem to recognise them as Christians. But as neighbours and relatives; as those who may be in distress and want, we are assuredly not for bidden to show towards them the offices of kindness and compassion. Whitby and some others, however, understand this of the communion of the Lord's Supper, and of that only.

(a) "if any man" Rom 16:17, 2Jn 1:10 (*) "fornicator" "impure" (+) "railer" "reviler" (+) "extortioner" "Oppressor" Verse 12. For what have I to do, etc. I have no authority over them; and can exercise no jurisdiction over them. All my rules, therefore, must have reference only to those who are within the church.

To judge. To pass sentence upon; to condemn; or to punish. As a Christian apostle, I have no jurisdiction over them.

Them also that are without. Without the pale of the Christian church; heathens; men of the world; those who did not profess to be Christians.

Do not ye judge, etc. Is not your jurisdiction as Christians confined to those who are within the church, and professed members of it? Ought you not to exercise discipline there, and inflict punishment on its unworthy members? Do you not in fact thus exercise discipline, and separate from your society unworthy persons-- and ought it not to be done in this instance, and in reference to the offender in your church?

(b) "without" Mk 4:11