성경 주석서

CHAPTER 5

1 Corinthians 5:1. After ἔθνεσιν Elz. has ὀνομάζεται, which is defended by Matthaei and Reiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, perhaps from Ephesians 5:3. Equally decisive is the evidence against ἐξαρθῇ, 1 Corinthians 5:2 (Elz.). From 1 Corinthians 5:13.—1 Corinthians 5:2. ποιήσας] Rück. and Tisch. read πράξας, which Griesb., too, recommended, with A C א, min[739] Or.? Manes (in Epiph.), Epiph. Bas. The external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase ποιεῖν ἔργον was very familiar to the transcribers from the N. T.; hence πράξας should have the preference.—1 Corinthians 5:3. ἀπών] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ὡς ἀπ., against A B C D* א, min[740] and several VSS[741] and Fathers. According to the analogy of the ὡς παρών which follows, ὡς (as embracing the whole ἀπών … πνεύμ.) was first of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text.—1 Corinthians 5:4. Ἰησοῦ alone (without Χριστοῦ) is the reading in both cases of A B D, Aeth. Clar. Lucif., and, as regards the second, of several other vss[742] and Fathers. So also Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Rightly; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the addition of Χριστοῦ.—1 Corinthians 5:5. τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ] So also א. Rückert reads τοῦ Κυρ. ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χριστοῦ, with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but probably taken from 1 Corinthians 1:8. Lachm. brackets ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ.; for B, Or. (thrice) Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply τοῦ Κυρίου. So Tisch. But since Ἰησοῦ occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and since their discrepancies concern only ἩΜῶΝ and ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, the Rec[743] ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ ἸΗΣΟῦ should be retained; for ἸΗΣΟῦ might very easily be overlooked, especially where four words, one after another, end in ΟΥ.—1 Corinthians 5:6. ΖΥΜΟῖ] The various readings ΔΟΛΟῖ (D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and ΦΘΕΊΡΕΙ (Lat. in Cerular.; corrumpit: Vulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations.—1 Corinthians 5:7. After ἐκκαθάρ. Elz. has ΟὖΝ, against a great preponderance of evidence. A connective addition, as are also ΚΑΊ before Οὐ in 1 Corinthians 5:10, and ΚΑΊ before ἘΞΑΡ. in 1 Corinthians 5:13. After ἩΜῶΝ Elz. and Scholz read ὙΠῈΡ ἩΜῶΝ, contrary to decisive testimony. An inappropriate (for the apostle is speaking only of the death of Christ in itself, see Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 161 ff.) dogmatic gloss.—1 Corinthians 5:10. ἢ ἅρπ.] καὶ ἅρπ. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm. Rück. and Tisch.); Ἤ was mechanically taken up from the context.—1 Corinthians 5:11. Instead of ᾞ before ΠΌΡΝ. Elz. has Ἤ, contrary to Syr[744] utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Ir. Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min[745] The ἤ, which occurs in B** D א, came in mechanically from the succeeding context.—1 Corinthians 5:12. ΚΑΊ] is wanting in A B C F G א, min[746] and several VSS[747] and Fathers (suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rück.); the authorities which omit it are so decisive, that it must be regarded as an addition in favour of the apostolic power of discipline as respects those that are within.—1 Corinthians 5:13. ἘΞΑΡΕῖΤΕ] ἘΞΆΡΑΤΕ, approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch., has perfectly conclusive evidence in its favour. The former reading has arisen from Deuteronomy 24:7, a passage which has also given origin to the weakly-attested ΚΑΊ before ἘΞΑΡ. in Elz.

[739] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[740] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[741] SS. vss. = versions.

[742] ss. vss. = versions.

[743] ec. Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[744] yr. Peschito Syriac

[745] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[746] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[747] SS. vss. = versions.

1 Corinthians 5:1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note of transition, but after the closing words of 1 Corinthians 4:21 with all the more telling force, the discourse falls with severity at once upon another deep-seated evil in the church.

ὅλως] means simply in general, in universum, as in 1 Corinthians 6:7, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Matthew 5:34, and in Greek writers; it belongs to ἀκούεται, so that to the general expression ὅλως ἀκούεται πορν. there corresponds the particular καὶ τοιαύτη πορν., sc[748] ἀκούεται. The latter, however, is something worse than the former, hence the ΚΑΊ is intensive (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147): One hears generally (speaking broadly) of fornication among you, and even of such fornication one hears among you, as is not found among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate that it is no dubius rumor, sed res manifesta; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, al[749]) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or omnino (Vulgate), but neither ubique nor certainly. Rückert thinks that it assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be supplied after 1 Corinthians 4:21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity; and that Paul would more fittingly have written γοῦν. This is arbitrary, and even in point of logic doubly incorrect, because ὍΛΩς here introduces the report of a quite special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization; and because, if the restrictive γοῦν would have been better in this passage, Paul in using the generalizing ὅλως must have expressed himself illogically.

ἐν ὑμῖν] not: as occurring among you (comp Ewald), for it is a defining statement which belongs to ἈΚΟΎΕΤΑΙ; but: one hears talk among you of fornication, one comes to hear of it in your community. Paul expresses the state of things as it was perhaps made known to him by Chloe’s people (1 Corinthians 1:11) or others who came from Corinth, and spoke to him in some such way as this: In the Corinthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc.; such things as these one is forced to hear of there!

ἐν τοῖς ἔθν.] ἈΕῚ ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ἘΘΝΙΚῶΝ ὈΝΕΙΔΊΖΕΙ ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΟῖς, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among the Jews: Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301; Michaelis, Mos. R. II. p. 206; Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 766 f. The instances of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Obss. I. p. 184) were exceptions contrary to law (see Elsner, p. 90; Wetstein and Pott in loc[751]), and abhorred (Wetstein, l.c[752]).

γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρός] i.e. אֵשֶׁת אָב, stepmother, Leviticus 18:8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was, no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Leviticus 18:8 that Paul chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation ΜΗΤΡΥΙΆ), ὭΣΤΕ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΧΑΛΕΠΏΤΕΡΟΝ ΠΛῆΞΑΙ, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual arrangement of the words, too, ΓΥΝΑῖΚΆ ΤΙΝΑ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς, puts an emphasis of ignominy upon ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ.

ἜΧΕΙΝ] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Rückert, Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage (Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Corinthians 7:12, Maier) or in concubinage (Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact that ἜΧΩ is never used in the N. T. in such sense as that of the well-known ἜΧΩ ΛΑΐΔΑ (Diog. Laert. ii. 75; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or “quis heri Chrysidem habuit?” (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage[753] Matthew 14:4; Matthew 22:28; Mark 6:18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:29. Comp 1Ma 11:9; Hom. Od. iv. 569; Herod. iii. 31; Thuc. ii. 29. 1; Xen. Cyr. i. 5. 4; Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef.; Maetzn. a[755] Lycurg. p. 121); but further, and more especially, the use of the past tenses ποιήσας, 1 Corinthians 5:2, and κατεργασάμενον, 1 Corinthians 5:3, to designate the matter, which convey not the conception of illicit intercourse, but that of an incestuous marriage having actually taken place. Paul ranks this case under the head of πορνεία (see on Matthew 5:32); because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further intends to designate definitely by κ. τοιαύτη πορν. κ.τ.λ[756] the particular occurrence which is included under this general category. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9, should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that πορνεία proves the case not to have been one of adultery. The objection, again, that Paul does not insist upon a divorce, is of no weight; for he does insist upon excommunication, and, after that had taken place, the criminal marriage—if the offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of his own accord—would no longer concern the Christians (see 1 Corinthians 5:12-13). Another objection: How could the magistrates have tolerated such a marriage? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and morally corrupt city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, especially on the point of the ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ (see Introd. § 1); and partly by remembering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or—which is more likely—a heathen, having turned Christian, might put forward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jebhamoth, f. 982; Michaelis, Einl. § 178, p. 1221; Lübkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this chapter.

As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian, else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Her former husband was still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him), and was probably a Christian; 2 Corinthians 7:12.

[748] c. scilicet.

[749] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[751] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[752] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[753] Even in John 4:18, where, however, the word must be kept in the peculiar significant mode of expression which belongs to the passage, as applied to an irregular, not real or legal marriage.

[755] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[756] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 5:1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in the church.

1 Corinthians 5:2. A question suddenly introduced with and, laying bare the incongruity of this state of things with the attitude previously noticed (see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f.).

ὑμεῖς emphatic: Ye, the people among whom so disgraceful a thing can occur; for κοινὸν πάντων τὸ ἔγκλημα γέγονε, Chrysostom.

πεφυσ. ἐστέ] What is meant is the spiritual self-conceit already censured (1 Corinthians 4:6 ff., 1 Corinthians 4:18) regarding the lofty degree of Christian wisdom and perfection in general, which they supposed themselves to have reached; not pride in the incestuous person himself, who is conceived to have been a highly-esteemed teacher (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius).

ἐπενθήσ.] are fallen into distress (penitential mourning), for by reason of the fellowship between Christians (comp 1 Corinthians 12:26) ἜΔΕΙ ΠΕΝΘῆΣΑΙ, ΔΙΌΤΙ ΕἸς ΤῸ ΚΟΙΝῸΝ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς Ἡ ΔΙΑΒΟΛῊ ΠΡΟΕΧΏΡΗΣΕΝ, Theophylact, comp Chrysostom.

ἽΝΑ ἈΡΘῇ Κ.Τ.Λ[759]] The design which, according to the apostle’s view, the ἐπενθ. ought to have had, and the attainment of which would have been its result, had it taken place: in order that he might be removed, etc. It intensifies and completes the contrast with their conceited self-assurance, and leads appropriately to the introduction of his own judicial sentence, which comes in, 1 Corinthians 5:3, with ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ[760]; all the less, therefore, is ἽΝΑ ἈΡΘῇ Κ.Τ.Λ[761] to be regarded as forming such a judicial utterance (Pott, Hofmann) standing forth with imperative independence: Away with him, etc. (see on 2 Corinthians 8:7). That does not come in until 1 Corinthians 5:13.

ἔργον] facinus, the nature of which is shown by the context. See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 671.

[759] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[760] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[761] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 5:3. Ἐγὼ μὲν γάρ] introduces the independent resolution already arrived at by himself, and therewith the justification of the ἵνα ἀρθῇ; for he, Paul, for his part, has resolved already to inflict a yet heavier punishment upon him. Comp also Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568]; the contents of 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 correspond to the ἵνα ἀρθῇ in its connection with καὶ … ἐπενθήσ. The μέν solitarium must be taken as meaning: I at least. See Hermann, a[763] Viger. p. 841 f.; Wunder, a[764] Soph. Phil. 159; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413.

τῷ πνεύματι] Comp 1 Corinthians 5:4 : τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, hence not to be understood, as Chrysostom and others hold,[766] of the Holy Spirit, against which τῷ σώματι also militates, comp 1 Corinthians 7:34; Romans 8:10; Colossians 2:5.

ἤδη κέκρ. ὡς παρών] have made up my mind already, as though I were present (personally superintending your community).[768]

τὸν οὕτω τοῦτο κατεργ.] belongs to πάραδ. τῳ Σατ., 1 Corinthians 5:5, so that, after the intermediate statements which follow, the object of the sentence is taken up again by τὸν τοιοῦτον in 1 Corinthians 5:5 (hunc talem inquam), comp 2 Corinthians 12:2. See Matthiae, p. 1045; Schaefer, Melet. p. 84. Bengel says happily: “Graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio usque ad 1 Corinthians 5:5.” Not so happy is Hofmann’s view, that τὸν … κατεργ. belongs to ΚΈΚΡΙΚΑ as an accusative of the object, whereupon ΠΑΡΑΔΟῦΝΑΙ Κ.Τ.Λ[770] is then set down to a mixing up of two constructions, this being coupled with an inappropriate comparison of Mark 14:64.

οὕτω] after such fashion, in such a way. The way and manner thereby referred to as aggravating the offence were known to the readers, but are unknown to us. Respecting οὕτω in a bad sense, see on John 18:22, and Bremi, a[771] Dem. Phil. I. p. 120. Pott and Olshausen explain it wrongly: “licet Christianus sit,” which is not implied in the text, and would state nothing special, for it was a matter of course that the person in question was not a non-Christian.

κατεργ.] has perpetrated, more emphatic than ποιήσας, 1 Corinthians 5:2. See on Romans 1:27.

[763] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[764] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[766] So, too, Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 385.

[768] Were the ὡς before ἀπών the genuine reading,—and Hofmann persists in retaining it as such, notwithstanding that cod. א, too, has added its weight to the side of the overwhelming contrary testimony,—this ὡς might be very simply distinguished from that which stands before παρών in this way, that the first ὡς would mean as, and the second as if.

[770] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[771] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 5:4. Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible: either ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. belongs to συναχθ. and σὺν τῇ δυν. to παραδοῦναι (Beza, Justiniani, Calovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both belong to συναχθ. (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Rückert), or both belong to παραδοῦναι (Mosheim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader, comp also Osiander); or ἐν τ. ὀνόμ. belongs to παραδοῦναι, and σὺν τ. δυνάμ. to the participial clause. Against the second and third of these views, there is the fact that the symmetry of the address would be needlessly destroyed by bringing in the authority of Christ twice over in the one division, and not at all in the other; against the first, again, there is this, that ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. κ.τ.λ[773], as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2 Thessalonians 3:6; Acts 3:6; Acts 16:18), links itself more suitably to the sense with παραδοῦναι Κ.Τ.Λ[774] than with συναχθ. κ.τ.λ[775] (to the latter of which Matthew 18:20, ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝ., might seem to offer not exactly a parallel, but still a similar representation). There remains therefore, as worthy of preference, the fourth method of connecting the words (Luther, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Maier, al[776]; Neander with hesitation). Against this, Hofmann objects that ἘΝ Τῷ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΙ Κ.Τ.Λ[777] ought not to have come in until after the participial clause; but quite under a misapprehension, for it is plainly of set purpose, and with all reason and propriety, that the apostolic sentence bears, so to speak, on its very front the seal of his high and plenary authority.

συναχθέντων … Ἰησοῦ] after ye are assembled, and my spirit (note the emphatic τ. ἐμοῦ), with the power of Jesus (“qui nostram sententiam sua potentia reddet efficacem,” Erasmus, Paraphr.). The substance of the thought, namely, which this whole statement sets before us with concrete vividness and solemnity, is the following: I have already resolved that ye hold an assembly of the church, in which ye shall consider me as present furnished with the power of Christ, and in this assembly shall declare: “Paul, in the name of Christ, with whose power he is here spiritually in the midst of us, hereby delivers over the incestuous man unto Satan.” Φρίκης μεστὸν συνεκρότησε δικαστήριον, Theodoret.

σύν] denotes in efficient connection therewith, that is to say, the spirit of the apostle is present in the assembly, not in virtue of his own independent power (comp Acts 3:12), but clothed with the authority of Christ, Winer, p. 366 [E. T. 458]. Thus the power of Christ is not conceived as the third party in the assembly,—a view in behalf of which Matthew 18:20; Matthew 28:20 are cited; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others, including Rückert and Maier.[779] For Paul bore this power in himself, being as an apostle its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himself meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but: as being present in immanent union with it as Christ’s apostle at the eventual act of judgment. It was just as the depositary of this power that he could give over the sinner to Satan in the name of the Lord, and be assured that the sentence would take effect. According to Hofmann, by σὺν τ. δυν. Κ.Τ.Λ[780] Paul means only to express this, that he would rely upon the aid of the power of Christ. Comp the classic σὺν θεοῖς, deorum ope (Reisig, Enarr. p. lxiv.; Kühner, a[782] Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded, after the ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κ.τ.λ[783] which has gone before it, would be far too weak.

[773] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[774] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[775] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[776] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[777] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[779] Chrysostom and Theophylact, however, leave the choice open between the two renderings: ἤ ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς δύναται τοιαύτην ὑμῖν χάριν δοῦναι, ὥστε δύνασθκι τῷ διαβόλῳ παραδιδόναι, ἤ ὅτι καὶ αὐτός μεθʼ ὑμῶν κατʼ αὐτοῦ φέρει τὴν ψῆφον. According to Theodoret, Christ is viewed as the presiding authority. Had the apostle, however, represented Christ to himself as forming the third in their meeting, he would hardly have used so abstract an expression (δυνάμει), but would have written at least σὺν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ Κυρίου. Comp. Acts 15:28.

[780] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[782] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[783] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 5:5. Τὸν τοιοῦτον] the so-constituted, comprises in one word the whole abhorrent character[784] of the man. Note the similar expression in 2 Corinthians 2:7.

παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ] is—although the phrase may not occur in Jewish formulae of excommunication (Lightfoot, Horae, p. 167 ff., but see Pfaff, Orig. jur. eccles. p. 72 ff.)—the characteristic designation of the higher Christian grade of excommunication, with which there was essentially joined the ordaining in the power of the apostolic office (not simply the presupposition, as Billroth’s rationalizing interpretation has it), that Satan should plague the person delivered over to him with corporeal inflictions. Therein consisted the difference between this peculiar species of the חֵרֶם which had passed over from the synagogue to the church, and the simple ΑἼΡΕΙΝ ἘΚ ΜΈΣΟΥ, 1 Corinthians 5:2, comp 1 Corinthians 5:13. The latter could be performed by the church itself, whereas the παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατ. appears in this passage, as in 1 Timothy 1:20, to be reserved for the plenary authority of an apostle. It pertained to the apostolic ἐξουσία, 2 Corinthians 13:10. Comp the analogous penal power in the cases of Ananias and Elymas, Acts 5:1 ff; Acts 13:9 ff. The simple exclusion belonged to the church independently, 1 Corinthians 5:2; and the apostle calls upon them in 1 Corinthians 5:13 to exercise this right of theirs. To himself, again, in the power of Christ, belonged the title and the power to inflict the intensified penalty of excommunication, the delivery to Satan, of which, accordingly, he does not say that the church ought to execute it, but that he has already resolved, etc. Observe, too, that παραδοῦναι is active; he does not say παραδοθῆναι, but he himself will do it. There is no reason to doubt the fact of this power being the prerogative of the apostleship, as the higher authority vested with power to punish[787] (Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 181, Hofmann); comp also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 373. As regards the special assumption, again, that the thought would be complete in itself without τῷ Σατανᾷ (Hofmann), 1 Timothy 1:20 should have been enough, even taken singly, to preclude it; for, judging from that passage, one might rather say that ΕἸς ὌΛΕΘΡΟΝ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΌς was obvious of itself. The delivery over to Satan can only be viewed as an express and declaratory act of relegation from Christian fellowship into the power of the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου; not as if Satan were but he, “through whom the evil-doer should come to experience what was destined for him” (Hofmann), which would not imply an exclusion from the church at all. Many other expositors, following Chrysostom and appealing to the case of Job, find here only the handing over to Satan for bodily chastisement,[789] and not along with that the excommunication (Lightfoot, Bochart, Wolf, al[790]). But this is against the connection, according to which (see 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:13) the παραδ. τῷ Σατανᾷ cannot belong to a different category from the αἴρειν ἐκ μέσον. At the same time it is not quite identical with it,[791] not simply a description of the excommunication (Calvin, Beza, and others, including Semler, Stolz, Schrader, Maier), seeing that the bodily result is indicated by εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ. as essential and as explaining itself to the reader without further interpretation.

εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ.] is that which is to be effected by Satan on the man delivered over to him: for behoof of destruction of the flesh, i.e. in order that (ἕλκει πονηρῷ ἢ νόσῳ ἑτέρᾳ, Chrysostom) his sinful fleshly nature, which is turned to account by the indwelling power of sin as the work-place of his desires and lusts, might be emptied of its energy of sinful life by the pains of bodily sickness, and might in so far perish and come to nought.[792] It is not his σῶμα that is to die, but his σάρξ (Romans 8:3; Colossians 3:5). The reason why the word σάρξ is here purposely selected, and not the ethically indifferent σῶμα, was correctly discerned by so early an expositor as Chrysostom, although many more recent interpreters, such as Rückert, have failed to perceive it. Hofmann also takes, in substance, the right view, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 462. To make, however, as he does (p. 105), the ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ. the same as διαφθείρεται ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, 2 Corinthians 4:15, accords neither with the real meaning nor with the ethical relations of the case. As regards the two telic statements: εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σ. and ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ[793] (which last expresses the final design of the whole measure of the παραδοῦναι Κ.Τ.Λ[794]), observe that it is with an anti-Christian purpose that Satan smites the man delivered over to him with bodily misery, but that against his own will this purpose of his is made to serve God’s aim of salvation.

ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ[795]] in order that his spirit, the underlying element of the higher moral life, of the true ζωή, may be saved (with the Messianic salvation) on the day of the (approaching) Parousia. That the σῶμα, again,—in which the ΣΆΡΞ has lost its life, so that it is no longer the ΣῶΜΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς, Colossians 2:11,—should then be glorified, was a thing which did not need to be expressly stated to the Christian eschatological consciousness. See so early an expositor as Chrysostom. Calovius puts it well: “Non ergo dividit hominem apostolus, quasi eum partim interire, partim servari velit. Nam nec corpus interire potest sine divulsione ab anima, nec anima servari absque corporis salute.” Now this Messianic salvation was to Paul’s mind not merely a possible thing (Olshausen), but he expected it as a result, which, in virtue of the saving power of Christ, could not fail to ensue after the slaying of the sinful impulses by the ὄλεθρος τῆς σαρκός in the case of the man led by this punishment to conviction of sin and true penitence. The ΠΑΡΑΔΟῦΝΑΙ Τῷ ΣΑΤ. was therefore a paedagogic penal arrangement, a “medicinale remedium” (Calovius), as is shown by the whole scope of this passage and 1 Timothy 1:20 (not by the term παραδοῦναι itself, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact maintain, on the ground of Paul’s not having written ἘΚΔΟῦΝΑΙ),—a measure, in connection with which the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ remained out of Satan’s power and accessible to the gracious influences of Christ, inasmuch as it retained the vital principle of faith, which was to develope its supremacy just in proportion as the ΣΆΡΞ was destroyed. This may suffice to set aside Rückert’s censure of the apostle’s proceeding, on the ground that the punishment might easily have led to the utter destruction of the sinner, and, moreover, that Paul acted “imprudently” (comp Baur, I. p. 335 f., 2d ed.), since he could not have compelled the Corinthians to obey him in the matter. He does not, in fact, actually ordain[797] the παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατ., but says merely that he, for his part, has already resolved on this, confining himself, therefore, certainly (against Lipsius and Hofmann) to the threat[798] in the meantime; and what he desires for the present is just the simple αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου (comp 1 Corinthians 5:13), which also was done by the majority, as we learn from 2 Corinthians 2:6, and that with the best results! Comp Bengel on 1 Corinthians 5:3. Upon the whole, too, we may believe that Paul knew his own powers of apostolic discipline, and may trust him to have been satisfied that, to try milder measures first (the omission of which Rückert blames as arising from passion), would not with the person concerned have had the effect aimed at.

[784] Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 843.

[787] Even if 1 Tim. is not an apostolic Epistle, 1 Timothy 1:20 is at all events written in the belief that the delivery to Satan was effected not by the church, but by the apostle.

[789] So also Grotius, who, moreover,—and in this Billroth follows him,—rationalizes παραδοῦνα into precari Deum, ut eum tradat.

[790] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[791] So, too, Theophylact on 1 Tim. l.c. Comp. Balsamon, ad Can. vii. Basil. p. 938, where it is said that we term subjects of Satan: οἱ χωριζόμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν πιστῶν, similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia in Cram. Cat. p. 92, who explains it of the excommunication (the result of which is the dominion of Satan; and Paul gives the name here from that result, in order the more to overawe), and then ὄλεθρον σαρκός: τὴν κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον διὰ τῆς μεταμεσυντριβήν. Comp. Ambrosiaster, Augustine, contr. Parm. iii. 2; Pelagius, Anselm.

[792] The expression: ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ., is too strong and characteristic to allow of its being understood merely of the pains of repentance breaking the sinful impulses. The repentance, too, was, in fact, just as likely to have remained lacking as to have set in, had it not been for these bodily pains intervening after the delivery over to Satan as a means of humiliation and discipline (comp. ἵνα παιδευθῶσι, 1 Timothy 1:20, and Huther on that verse). Thereby the whole mortification of the old man was to be brought about, inasmuch as the σάρξ constitutes the moral essence of the old man in virtue of the power of sin which dwells in it (Romans 7:18), and which guides and governs him. The σάρξ is to perish, in order that the δίκη of ὄλεθρος αἰώνιος may not be inflicted at the day of judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:9; comp. 1 Timothy 6:9).

[793] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[794] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[795] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[797] Baur, however, is of opinion (Paulus, I. p. 334) that as it never did come in the instance before us to the working of an actual apostolic miracle, so neither did such a thing ever take place in any other case. See, on the other hand, Romans 15:19; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 12:29 f.

[798] Hence, too, the idea that the readers were to let him know of the day fixed for the meeting in question (Hofmann), is not conveyed in the passage, and is, indeed, quite alien to its scope.

1 Corinthians 5:6. In face of the necessity for such measures as these—how odious appears that of which ye make boast! Rather ought ye to consider that a little leaven, etc., and (1 Corinthians 5:7) sweep out the old leaven! Καύχημα is not the same as καύχησις, but: materies gloriandi (see on Romans 4:2); and what is meant by it is not the incestuous person (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius) as a man of high repute for wisdom in Corinth, but the condition of the Corinthians as a Christian church, inasmuch as they boasted themselves of this so confidently, while morally it was foul enough and full of shameful abuses! αἰσχρὸν κλέος, Eur. Hel. 135.

οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.λ[801]] Basis of the admonition which follows in 1 Corinthians 5:7. The meaning of the proverbial saying (comp Galatians 5:9, and on the figure of the leaven, which is very frequently used elsewhere, and that in different senses, Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:21; Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1) is ordinarily defined to be this: that a corrupt man corrupts the whole church. But 1 Corinthians 5:8 proves that Paul was thinking not of persons, but of abstract qualities in connection with ζύμη and ἄζυμα. The meaning, therefore, must be: Know ye not that one scandal in the church robs the whole church of its moral and Christian character? Comp also Hofmann. In virtue of their relation as members of a common society, all become chargeable with guilt by the toleration among them of a single scandalous offence, and their ἁγιότης is gone!

[801] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 5:7. Ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλ. ζύμ.] From what has been already said, the meaning apart from the figure cannot, it is plain, be: Exclude from your communion the incestuous person (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Zeger, Estius, Michaelis) and other notorious offenders (Rosenmüller), but: Empty your church of the sinful habits, which still remain among you from your pre-Christian condition (as a residuum of the unregenerate παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9). Comp Theodoret, Calvin, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hofmann. Flatt, Pott, and Rückert join the two ideas together; but this is unwarranted and against the unity of sense of the passage. Respecting τὴν παλαιάν, comp Ignatius, Magnes. 10 : τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθείσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν.

The expression ἐκκαθάρ. (comp Plato, Euth. p. 3 A; LXX. Deuteronomy 26:13) is selected in view of the custom, based on Exodus 12:15 ff; Exodus 13:7, and very strictly observed among the Jews, of removing all leaven from the houses on the day before the Passover (see as to this, Schoettgen, Hor. p. 598; Lund, Jüd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1111 f.), which was meant to be a sign of the moral purification of the house (Ewald, Alterth. p. 475 f.).

νέον φύραμα] a fresh kneaded mass, i.e. figure apart: a morally new church, freshly restored after the separation from it of all immoral fermenting elements, its members being νέοι ἄνθρωποι through Christ (Colossians 3:9-10). As respects the difference between νέος and καινός, see on Colossians 3:10.

καθώς ἐστε ἄζυμοι] in accordance with your unleavened character, i.e. in keeping with the ethical nature of the position of a Christian, which, as such, is separated from sin. For this ἄζυμον εἶναι is the essential characteristic in the Christian,—who is, it is taken for granted, reconciled to God, born again, spiritually dead and risen again with Christ (Romans 6:2 ff.), and who as a new κτίσις of God (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10) in the καινότης πνεύματος (Romans 7:6) is free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), and constantly developing the powers of a divine life towards perfect holiness (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 6:14 ff.), being alive unto God as His child in whom Christ lives (Galatians 2:19-20)—and sin in such an one (the being leavened) is abnormal. Hence Christians are—according to this higher mode of regarding the position of a Christian

ἄζυμοι. There is as little warrant for rendering ἐστέ here by esse debetis (Flatt, Pott, Billroth, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, al[807]) as in Luke 9:55. Rosenmüller holds that ἄζυμ. has here its proper meaning: as ye now “vivitis festos dies azymorum.” But ἄζυμος, in fact, does not mean qui abstinet fermento (as Grotius would make out, likening it to ἄσιτος, ἄοινος), but non fermentatus (comp מַצוֹת). Plato, Tim. p. 74 D; Athen. iii. p. 109 B; Genesis 19:3; Ezekiel 29:2, al[809] Moreover, Paul could not address these words in that proper meaning to the church as a whole, even if the Jewish-Christians among them still kept the Jewish Passover.

καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα κ.τ.λ[810]] The motive for ἘΚΚΑΘΆΡΑΤΕ Κ.Τ.Λ[811] The emphasis is on τὸ πάσχα,[812] and καὶ γάρ does not mean simply for, etenim, but for also (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f.; Stallbaum, a[813] Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B), the “also” introducing the objective relation of things corresponding to the exhortation which had just been given. The paschal lamb slain, and the leaven not purged out—what a contradiction that is! Paul designates Christ as the Christians’ paschal lamb which had been slain (Deuteronomy 16:6; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7), because He is the antitype of the Passover lamb under the law, inasmuch, namely, as His blood was shed, not by any means merely “as the beginning of redemption which made it possible” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 323), but, according to the whole N. T., as the atonement for believers, and that, too, on the very same day (the day before the feast of the Passover, see on John 18:28) on which, from the earliest times, the blood of the paschal lambs had been shed as an expiation for each family (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f.; Keil, § lxxxviii. 11). Comp also John 19:36. In connection with this verse it has been justly remarked (comp on John 18:28, and Lücke in the Gött. gel. Anz. 1834, p. 2020), that Paul could not with propriety have given this title to Christ, if he had followed the Synoptical account of the day of Jesus’ death. Comp Introd. to John, § 2. In point of fact, had he followed the tradition of the Synoptists, that death-day, as being the 15th Nisan, would, by the mode of conception necessarily arising from his Jewish nationality, have hindered his calling Christ antitypically the slain Paschal lamb. For a Passover lamb slain on the first day of the feast would have been, to a Jewish mind moulded according to the ancient and venerated appointment of the divine law, a “contradictio in adjecto;”[817] even supposing that the point of the comparison—which, in accordance with the invariable Pauline mode of regarding the death of Jesus (comp also on John 1:29), must of necessity be His being slain as a ἱλαστήριον, Romans 3:25—were the new divine polity of the holy people, to which the death of Jesus stands, it is said, just in the same relation as the slaying of the paschal lamb in Egypt to the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt (as Hofmann objects). Wieseler, in his chronol. Synopse, p. 374 f. (comp also his Beitr. z. Würdigung d. Ev. p. 266), urges as an argument on the other side, that in 1 Corinthians 10:16, τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, as a technical phrase for the cup in the Lord’s Supper, shows that this cup was identified with that of the Passo1Co 5:Assuredly! but it shows also, in necessary connection therewith, that Christ slain on the 14th Nisan was the Paschal Lamb of believers. The Supper, therefore, which brought them into fellowship with the body and blood of Christ, could not but present itself to the Christian consciousness as the paschal meal, corresponding to the eating of the paschal lamb, and so, too, the cup in the Supper as the antitype of the paschal cup. Consequently chap. 1 Corinthians 10:16, taken in connection with the passage before us, speaks for and not against the account in John. It is, however, from the view held by the primitive church respecting the Supper as the antitype of the paschal meal, that the origin of the Synoptical tradition is to be historically understood. See on John 18:28.

[807] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[809] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[810] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[811] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[812] Theodoret renders wrongly, for it is against the order of the words (as if it were καὶ γὰρ ἡμῶν τ. π.): ἔχομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀμνὸν τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἱερουργίαν καταδεξάμενον; comp. Luther and Neander. Erasmus translates correctly: “Nam et pascha nostrum.”

[813] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[817] This passage, too, therefore goes to establish the position that John’s narrative, and not the Synoptic, is the historically correct one as regards the day of the death of Jesus. Observe how the Rabbinical tradition also agrees with this. See Gemara Bab. in Sanhedr. vi. 2 : “Traditio est, vespera Paschatis suspensum fuisse Jesum.” It is well known that the 14th Nisan (the Preparation-day) was called ערב פסח, vespera Paschatis. The fabulous circumstances linked with the death of Jesus itself in the passage of the Talmud referred to, do not affect the simple statement as to the time when it took place.