1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Butler's Comments

SECTION 3

Affiliations Sorted (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robbernot even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to ?Judges 13:1-25 God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.

1 Corinthians 5:9-10 Associating with Heathen: We learn from 1 Corinthians 5:9 that Paul wrote at least three letters to the Corinthian church. It is clear from his statement, I wrote to you in my letter., that he had written to Corinth prior to the epistle now before us, and, of course, he wrote at least one (Second Corinthians) afterward. In the non-extant letter Paul had exhorted them not to associate with immoral men. The Greek word sunanamignusthai is a compound of three words and literally means, mix up with, and is translated associate with (RSV) and company with (KJV). The same Greek word is used in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and is translated have nothing to do with him. In his previous letter Paul intended his exhortation about dissociation from immoral people to be applied in its strictest sense to any fellow Christian who was continuing, impenitently, in an immoral sexual relationship. That would probably apply specifically, as we shall observe later, to grossly impenitent and perverted sexual sinners in the heathen society as well. It seems, however, that the Corinthians inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) misunderstood Paul. They assumed he meant they were to withdraw completely from any associations with their heathen neighbors. The RSV translation, not at all, of the Greek words ou pantos seems to make Paul mean that Christians should have no reservations at all about mixing or mingling with the immoral around them. Such an idea would make the inspired apostle contradict himself since in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 Corinthians 7:1 Paul pointedly commands Christians not to share in heathen depravity! The Greek words ou pantos are better translated, not meaning altogether. Thus Paul is saying, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not meaning that you must dissociate yourself altogether (or completely) from the immoral of this world.. The apostle categorizes the heathen into those who sin against their bodies (immoral, Gr. pornois, sexual sins), those who sin against society (greedy and robbers), and those who sin against God (idolaters, Gr. eidololatrais, image worshipers).

Since all the citizens of Corinth, except the Christians and Jews, would be idolaters, and many of them would be guilty of sexual sins and/or greedy, it would have been nearly impossible for the Christians to reject all associations with the heathen. They could have made no purchases in the markets, made no appeals for civil justice, visited no neighbors and relatives, and made no evangelistic contacts with the lost. The only way they could have had no associations at all, theoretically, would be to move away from the city of Corinth into the uninhabited mountains and forests and formed monasteries or communes which were completely self-sustaining and self-governing. Total dissociation would have precluded any possibility of the Corinthian Christians carrying out the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 28:18-20). Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever advocated asceticism or monasticism. New Testament Christianity is to be lived out in the midst of a sinful society so it may have a leavening (in the good sense) influence (cf. Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20-21). Christians are the salt of the earth and light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Christians are to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:15-19). As one writer has put it, Paul's admonition here concerning the immoral of this world did not prohibit contact, but it did prohibit conformity.

But Paul's admonition concerning an impenitent, immoral person who bears the name of brother, is, not even to eat with such a one. This does not refer to the Lord's Supper, but to dining together socially. Being a guest for dinner in another person's home was considered in the ancient world to be a sign that the host was intimately associated with the guest and that he agreed with his philosophical stand and his life-style. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus would eat with publicans and sinners (cf. Matthew 9:10-11; Matthew 11:19; Luke 19:7). It would be dangerous to both the faithful Christian and the impenitent brother for the faithful Christian to socialize with the impenitent (see 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Titus 3:10-11; 2 Peter 2:1-22; 2 John 1:10-11). First, it would give the impenitent brother the impression that he would be acceptable in the Christian fellowship whether he repented or not; second, it would expose the faithful brother to temptations in a seductive atmosphere of geniality and acceptability; third, it would make possible certain unwarranted conclusions from both the Christian community and the pagan society that the Church was not much different than the world in the matter of immorality.

The church is not charged with the responsibility of disciplining (judging) outsiders. Paul expected the Corinthian church to know that. As far as the unchurched sinners of society was concerned, the apostle allows for such contact as was necessary for the ongoing of life in the world. But he permitted no contact (complete withdrawal) at even the social level with a sinning brother.
On the other hand, the church is most specifically charged with the responsibility for disciplining (judging) members of the church. For the church to fail in this duty is to dilute the spiritual quality of the congregation, and thus destroy its purpose as a city set on a hill! This does not mean that all church members must be sinless. It does not mean that every church member who commits an unwitting sin or falls into a temptation, must be excommunicated. The crucial issue is flagrant, shameful, continued sin for which there is no apparent repentance (including a change of mind issuing in a change of conduct). When such impenitence is reported and has been established by due scriptural process, discipline involving driving out (Gr. exareite, expel, take out, removed from) the evil one (Gr. poneron) from the fellowship of the church is demanded. It is the word of the Lord!

Applebury's Comments

Paul Explains the Instruction he has Given (9-13)

Text

1 Corinthians 5:9-13. I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; 10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: 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. 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

Commentary

I wrote to you in my epistle.Literally, in the epistle. See the reference to Sosthenes who is called our brother, although it is literally the brother (1 Corinthians 1:1). This often presents a problem in translation, for the article could be used in a number of different ways. In this case, it could refer to the epistle which the Corinthians were reading (our First Corinthians).

The tense of the verb also presents a translation problem. Normally it would indicate action occurring in past time just as our English text says, I wrote. But the Greeks also used this tense with another meaning. For example, Paul could be thinking of his readers in such a manner as to suppose that he was actually with them when they were reading the letter. If this is true, he would be saying, In this letter, I wrote to have no company with fornicators. This, in substance, is what he did write in 1 Corinthians 5:1-9. Note 1 Corinthians 5:2, he that had done this thing might be taken away from you, and Purge out the old leaven (1 Corinthians 5:7). In other words, he could be explaining in greater detail what he had just written. All are agreed that this is the sense in which I wrote is verse eleven is to be taken.

While some of the early commentators take this view about verse nine, most of the later ones think of it as a reference to an epistle which he wrote prior to our First Corinthians. It is, according to this view, the lost epistle of Paul'S. While we must concede that this is possible, the fact remains that it is not a proven fact and that it does make sense to take I wrote as suggested above. While all this is interesting and should be taken into consideration, it does not change the import of this passage in the slightest. We still have the inspired instruction about such cases of misconduct in the church and the explanation as given in this section (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

no company with fornicators.Literally, not mixed up with. Do not mingle or associate with those guilty of immoral conduct such as this one who had his father's wife.

not at all meaning with fornicators of this world.What the apostle had said on this subject in this epistleor in the so-called lost epistlewas not to be understood as saying that church people were never to associate with people of the world. Of course, they were not to mingle with them in such a manner as to become one like them and lend approval to sinful practice. The Pharisees attempted to discredit Jesus by insinuating that His presence at social functions of His day where tax collectors and sinners were present was lending approval to sinful practice. Jesus-' answer to this charge was this, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick (Matthew 9:12). Christian people cannot afford to associate with the world and partake of its sinful practices, but they must make contact in such a manner as to help the lost sinner of the world to find the Savior.

for then must ye heeds go out of the world.Paul was afraid that they might misunderstand what he had written on this subject. Was it a former epistle or the one he was just writing? This, of course, was no problem to the Corinthians. If they had received an earlier epistle, this language would be clear to them. If, on the other hand, all he had written was this letter, then it would be equally intelligible to them. But this need not trouble us, for the meaning is the same whether written in some earlier epistle or in the earlier paragraph.

Christian people are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. It is not possible to go out of the world, and if it were, it would be contrary to God's plan to save the believer to do so. God's plan calls for the preaching of the word of the cross by the faithful church that men might hear and believe and be saved.

if any man that is named a brother.What Paul wrote concerned the church composed of brethren in Christ. The church is in the world but not of it, just as Jesus said of the apostles (John 17:11-14). Living in the world where sinners lives does not mean that Christians approve the sinful things of the world. To condone sin in the church, however, does mean that the church is lending approval to sin. This idea is completely out of harmony with the terms by which Paul had addressed the church in the opening words of this epistle. There he called them sanctified and saints which implied separation from the world of sin.

covetous.People are sometimes known by the company they keep. This is true of words also, for the other terms with which a word may be associated tend to influence its meaning. Immoral conduct was abhorrent to God and should also be to godly people. But how often do we think of covetousness as being in the same category? Paul says that covetousness is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). In this context he lists it with the fornicator, the idolater, the reviler, the drunkard, and the extortioner.

with such a one no, not to eat.So what he writes is not limited to one particular sin such as fornication. The whole list is condemned. Christians are not to try to go on living in sin of any sort.

Not to eat does not refer to the Lord's supper. It is rather a reference to what has just been said about not getting mixed up with sinners in such a manner as to lend approval to sinful conduct. Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 10:27 that it would not be wrong for a Christian to eat with a non-Christian provided it did not involve a compromise of Christian, principles.

judging them that are without.Paul's responsibility was clearly with the church, not outsiders. He pronounced inspired judgment on those who were in the body of Christ. The world was in another category. The gospel was to be preached to all the world that they might believe and be baptized and so be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Until men of the world get this done, they are not under the standard of conduct that governs the Christian.

God judgesh.God will judge the sinner of the world in the day of the Lord. This warning should cause sinners within and without to repent (Acts 17:30-31). Therefore Paul says, Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

Summary

As was to be expected, a divided church that was more interested in promoting a party spirit than in becoming a living demonstration of the power of the word of the cross to transform a life had neglected its duty toward its own members. For example, one who wore the name of brother was guilty of the sin of having his father's wife; others were going to law before pagan judges to the disgrace of the church in the eyes of the gentile world; still others were guilty of sinning against the body that God intended to be a temple of the Holy Spirit.
The apostle severely condemns the revolting sin of immoral conduct. But the attitude of the whole church toward this sin and their failure to do their duty in correcting the condition are even more severely criticized by Paul in this chapter.
Even the Gentiles would not tolerate such a sin as a man having his father's wife, but the church had neglected to act in the case of a brother practicing this disgraceful thing. They were puffed up over divisions among them and had entirely neglected to consider the enormity of the sin that should have caused the deepest sense of shame and sorrow to the whole church.
Paul, although absent from them, had made up his mind what should be done. He told them of his decision which stood just as if he were actually present. The church should gather together and be aware of his presence in spirit because of the letter he was writing to them. The church could then act in the name of Christ, doing what Christ Himself would do, and deliver this one to Satan. The power to do this belonged to the Lord and was exercised through the inspired instruction of the apostle in connection with the obedience of the church. The action prescribed was designed to show the guilty one that Satan was the only one left to approve his guilty conduct. Pagans would then see that such a one was completely discredited as a representative of anything belonging to Christ and His church.
The purpose of this action was the destruction of the fleshthe source of the sinful conduct that led to this violation of God's law of righteous conduct. That it is remedial in intent is evident from the expressed hope that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.
They could not escape the meaning of the solemn decree which Paul as the Lord's inspired spokesmen sent to them in writing: For I, although absent in body, but present in spirit, have already passed judgment (decided the case), as if I were present, on the one who did such a thingthat is, in the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have gathered together, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to hand such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Their boasting over the superiority of one leader to the disparagement of another was not a very pretty thing. It had caused the church to be discredited in the eyes of the Gentile community. How then could they hope to win pagans to Christ? Didn-'t they know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? The whole church was condemned because it condoned the sin of one who was known as a brother.
Following the analogy of the passover feast during which all leaven was excluded form the homes of God's people, Israel, Paul commands the church to rid itself of this sin for Christ their passover had already been slain. They had been separated from sin when they became Christians; they should continue, not in sin, but in the new life with Christ.
Paul explains that he had writtenin the preceding paragraph or in the lost epistlethat they were not to get mixed up with sinners. He did not mean that they were to get off the earth to avoid contact with evil. He had written to say that they should not get mixed up with an immoral person, or a covetous man, or an idol worshipper, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner who may bear the name of brother. No social contact that implied approval of such sinners was permitted.
As to the outsider, Paul said, It is not for me to judge him. God will judge sinners in the day of the Lord, but the church is responsible for carrying out the directives of the Lord with respect to the sinful conduct of its members. Paul's final word left no doubt about what they were to do. They were to remove the evil one from their midst and do it immediately. The nature of the sin demanded peremptory action by the whole church.