1 Corinthians 5:11

“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one, no, not to eat.”

The words but now can only express a logical contrast. The νῦν contrasts Paul's true thought, which remains, with his thought as it was disfigured by the Corinthians, which is relegated to the past. The emphasis is on the words, who is called a brother; as Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 5:12, he has not to exercise discipline on those who do not profess the faith. But when a man, who parades the title of Christian, exhibits this profession side by side with vice, the Church is bound to protest against this lying union, and with this view, so far as depends on it, to break off all relations with such a man. This is the way to tear from him the mask with which he covers himself to the shame of the Church and of Christ Himself.

The six following terms have been grouped, either in threes (Meyer) or in three pairs (Hofmann), with more or less ingenuity. It seems to me that, as in the enumeration Romans 1:29 seq., we have here rather an unstudied accumulation than a classification, strictly so called. It may be said that in such cases disgust excludes order. To the four terms of 1 Corinthians 5:10 Paul adds two new ones: λοίδορος, a man who speaks rudely, who calumniates, and μέθυσος, the intemperate man.

We have already shown that the not to company with indicates the rupture of private relations. But should not the last words, with such a man, no, not to eat, be applied to the rupture of the ecclesiastical relation by his exclusion from worship and from the Holy Supper? The word μηδέ, nay, no more, not even, does not allow this explanation of συνεσθίειν, to eat with. For this act is thus characterized as a matter of less gravity, and Paul could never so speak of the Holy Supper. Among the ancients, for a man to receive any at his table was much more a sign of intimacy than in our day; and the apostle is unwilling that by the sign of so close a personal relation the idea should be authorized that the vicious man is acknowledged by other Christians as worthy of the name. Meyer, indeed, admits that the phrase, no, not to eat with..., can only refer to the believer's private table. But by an argument à fortiori, he concludes that it applies with still more certainty to the Holy Supper. Theodoret had already argued in the same way: “Not to eat, with stronger reason not to hold communion with him.” In such a matter it is dangerous to proceed by way of logical deduction. In arguing thus, account is not taken of this difference, that the table prepared in my house is my own, while the Holy Supper is the Lord's Table. I am therefore responsible for those whom I admit to the former, but not for those who appear at the latter. It appears from 1 Corinthians 11:28-29, that the Lord thinks good to leave each one liberty to eat and drink his condemnation at the holy table, and will not prevent him from doing so by external means. The parable of the tares already suggested such a course, the only one in keeping with God's regard for human liberty. The apostle justifies the distinction which he has just made between believers and unbelievers.