“For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do ye not judge them that are within? 13. But them that are without, God judgeth. And put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

The first question is the justification (for) of 1 Corinthians 5:10: “We have not to judge unbelievers.” The second is the justification of 1 Corinthians 5:11: “But we have to judge believers.”

Our competency to exercise discipline does not extend further than the solidarity established by confession of the common faith. This general truth the apostle expresses in his own person (μοί, mine), as is often done in stating moral maxims (1 Corinthians 6:12, for example); this form does not therefore assume, as has been sometimes thought, that the word κρίνειν, to judge, has here a particular meaning, applicable exclusively to the apostle; for example, that of laying down disciplinary rules: “The rules which I prescribe to you on this subject are not to be applied to those who are without.” This sense of κρίνειν is inadmissible. In any case, had it been the part which he had to take personally on which Paul wished to lay stress, he would not have used the enclitic form (μοι), but the full form (ἐμοί). He speaks of himself, not as an apostle, but as a Christian; and what he says applies consequently to every Christian. Every Christian has individually the mission to exercise the judgment of which he speaks in 1 Corinthians 5:11. We have already pointed out the profound analogy which prevails between this chapter and the disciplinary direction given to the apostles by the Lord (Matthew 18:15-20). We find in the latter (in Matthew 5:17) the same use of the singular pronoun, which strikes us here in the language of the apostle; only the pronoun is in the second person, because it is Jesus who is addressing the believer: “Let him be to thee as a heathen and publican.” It is therefore every believer who is bound freely at his own hand to pronounce this rupture of relations with the unbelieving brother which Paul prescribes to the Church in general. For if it is in itself the duty of all, it cannot be other in point of fact than a completely individual act.

T. R. with 3 Mjj. reads: “What have I to do to judge those also (καί) that are without?” This καί may, after all, be authentic: “The competency which I have in regard to my brethren, should I not also extend to others?” The Jews called the heathen chitsonim, those without (Lightfoot, Hor. hebr., p. 6). The apostle borrows the name from them to designate, not only the heathen, but the Jews themselves; comp. the analogous term used by Jesus, Mark 4:11. In all the synagogues dispersed throughout heathen countries careful watch was kept over the respectability of the members of the community. Should the Church in this point remain behind the synagogue?

The term judge can only be explained in the context by what precedes. It can only therefore refer to the means which have just been indicated, viz. private rupture.

The second question (1 Corinthians 5:12 b) is in the same relation to 1 Corinthians 5:11 as the first (1 Corinthians 5:12 a) to 1 Corinthians 5:10. “I have not the task of judging them that are without; but have not you that of judging them that are within, the vicious among believers, and that in name of the faith which they profess along with you?” We are called to remark the emphasis put on the word ὑμεῖς, ye, in opposition to θεός, God, the subject of the following proposition.

Continues after advertising
Continues after advertising

Old Testament

New Testament