1 Corinthians 5:1,2

Butler's Comments

SECTION 1

Atrocious Sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)

5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

1 Corinthians 5:1 Aberration: Abruptly Paul brings up the subject of the grossest immorality being practiced in the Corinthian brotherhood by one of the church members. It had actually (Gr. holos, most assuredly, incontrovertibly) been established and reported that there was immorality (Gr. porneia, sexual unchastity) among Christians in Corinth. The Greek word porneia does not indicate the specific form this immorality had taken because the word is used as a synonym for adultery (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9) and for illicit sexual intercourse in the unmarried (1 Corinthians 6:9) while in classical Greek and the book of Revelation the word is used for prostitution (Revelation 17:2; Revelation 17:4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 18:9). In fact, porneia often means, in the New Testament, illicit sexual intercourse in general. But Paul specifies the sexual immorality in Corinth as a form of incest, (incest, from Latin incestus and French incastus, meaning simply, not chaste). Paul does not use the word incest but simply describes the case as a man living with his father's wife. Some commentators assume that the guilty man's father had died and the son was living with one of the father's wives. Most do not think it was the guilty man's own mother, but a second wife of his father after divorce or death. Other commentators think the father may have been still living and was the one who suffered the wrong mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:12. Whatever the status of the guilty man's father, the crime of incestuous sexual intercourse is severe enough to warrant the death penalty in the Mosaic covenant (cf. Leviticus 18:6-18; Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 27:20). The possibility of genetic deformities in the offspring of incestuous relationships is not relevant to scriptural prohibition. God decrees against incest because it destroys the divinely decreed order of human hierarchy in marriage and thus is destructive of the social order itself.

Paul describes this sin with shock as, such immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles. Paul was speaking hyperbolically to emphasize the seriousness of the crime. Incest was practiced among a few of the more depraved Gentiles. Some of the ancient Egyptians (Cleopatra II, with her brother, Cleopatra VII with Ptolemy XIII, her brother) practiced incest; Herod Antipas was married to Herodias, his niece-sister-in-law; some of the Roman emperors were accused by Suetonius in his Lives of The Twelve Caesars of practicing incest (Nero with his mother; Caligula with his sisters); Cicero, citing the case of the woman Sassia's marriage to her son-in-law, Melinus, says, Oh, incredible wickedness, andexcept in this woman's case-unheard of in all experience. There is also the case of a man named Callias, cited by Andocides in Greece in 400 B.C., who married his wife's mother! But Andocides asks whether among the Greeks such a thing had ever been done before. Even some Jews practiced incest in the days of Ezekiel (cf. Ezekiel 22:11). So, even though some of the more depraved practiced it, the crime of incest was generally abhorent to the pagan. Even modern day anthropologists and sociologists find incest a crime considered immoral, aberrant and destructive in all ages and cultures:

Cross-cultural studies of morality have typically remarked on the complexity and diversity of values to be found across time and space. One commentator has been led to conclude that There is scarcely one norm or standard of good conduct that, in another time and place, does not serve to mark bad conduct. One possible exception to this conclusion is the universality of the incest taboo. (Moral Development and Behavior, pg. 70, Thomas Lickona, Editor, pub. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1976)

True, Corinth was Corinthone of the fleshpots of the ancient worldbut for all their obsessions with sin, the pagan Corinthians themselves had certain limits! It is hard to believe that a sin which even the pagans shunned had invaded the Church! Carnality (concentration on worldliness) plays funny tricks. It often turns truth upside down, or as Isaiah the prophet put it, calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

1 Corinthians 5:2 Arrogance: The Christians in Corinth divided when they were supposed to be unitedand united when they were supposed to be dividing! Is there ever a time when Christians are supposed to divide? Certainly not over song books, church buildings or human leaders, or any other frivolous matter. But immorality of any kind is never a frivolous matter. Apparently, from this text and others, God expects Christians to keep themselves separated from anyone who calls himself a brother and is continuing to practice immorality. The RSV says the guilty man was living with his father's wife; the Greek text uses the word echein which is a present infinitive and means literally, to keep on having. This immorality was flagrant and continuous. Some of these Corinthian Christians had formerly been fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards and robbers as well as idolaters (1 Corinthians 6:10) but they had overcome these sins. Even at the time this epistle was being written they were having difficulty resolving the problems of sexuality and marriage (I Cor. ch. 7). Indeed, even those called saints are faced with such problems. It is not a guarantee against temptation to be a Christian. Temptations are sure to come (Matthew 18:7). But Christians must not give in to temptations. Forty years later, the Christians of Asia Minor were still having problems with immorality in their congregations (see Revelation, ch. 2-3).

They were puffed up (Gr. pephusiomenoi, perfect tense verb, meaning, having been puffed up in the past, they were continuing to be puffed up). Paul was shocked about the incestuous relationship in this Christian, but he was more shocked at the attitude of the congregation toward it! The congregation had puffed itself up with self-importance and worldly wisdom. It was more interested in maintaining its cliques and parties and its image with the worldly-wise than in righteousness. They were concentrating on patterning the church after human institutions and worldly structures of leadership. Perhaps they were so puffed up about their image they did not want to admit this problem existed among them. If they took the drastic action taught by Christ and the apostles, they might be stigmatized as prudish by the pagan society of Corinth and their image of sophistication would be destroyed. It does not seem they were proud of the immoral conduct on the part of this brother, but their sin lay in the fact that they failed to do what God required and remove the immoral person from their fellowship. Perhaps the elders of the church were afraid their fellow Christians might accuse them of being judgmental had they taken the action required by the gospel. These are the very reasons some Christian congregations and leaders do not exercise New Testament guidance today in disciplining church members guilty of flagrant, aberrant and continuous immorality. Another reason it has become difficult today to apply discipline that would lead to repentance is the fact that a Christian disfellowshiped from one congregation may find sympathetic indulgence and reception in another congregation, often within the same city or locality.

Paul suggests that the only proper attitude for the congregation toward this disgraceful immorality is that of mourning. Incidentally, Paul's suggestion furnishes a classic illustration of what Jesus meant in the second Beatitude (Matthew 5:4), Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be strengthened. The Bible pronounces a blessing on those who mourn over the cause of sin which is rebellion and disgrace toward God. Most people selfishly mourn because they are suffering the consequences of their sinthey are not concerned that sin has brought shame and hurt to God. The Greek syntax of 1 Corinthians 5:2 is instructive! Literally it would be translated, And you, having become puffed up continue to be, rather than having mourned about this circumstance in order that (Gr. hina) the one having done this deed might be removed from among you. In other words, true Christian mourning about sin does something about the sin. Mourning is not satisfied simply with regret. Paul advised, Let him who has done this be removed (Gr. arthe, be driven out) from among you.

The Corinthian congregation was not mourningthey were boasting (see 1 Corinthians 5:6). What had they to boast about in this situation? Obviously, they were not bragging about how immoral the congregation was. Their pride undoubtedly centered in their concept of sophistication or broadmindedness. The elders and leaders of the different factions may have rationalized, What our brother does in his private life is entirely his affair. Our obligation is to continue to love him; we dare not be judgmental toward these people. Perhaps they justified their approach to the circumstances by saying to themselves, When you live in Corinth, you have to adapt somewhat to the culture. Besides, morals change with the times and we should feel a certain obligation to -loosen up-' ourselves, become less bigoted and more liberal. This same carnal attitude of boasting about broad-mindedness, especially in the area of sexual promiscuity, is sweeping our nation in high and low placesand even in some churches. Whatever the excuse for their boasting, it was improperin fact it was sinful!