The case of the incestuous member of the church, vs. 1–5. Exhortation to purity, and to fidelity in discipline, vs. 6–13.
Reproof for retaining an unworthy member in the church. Vs. 1–13
THE second evil in the church of Corinth, to which Paul directs his attention, is allowing a man guilty of incest to remain in its communion. He says it was generally reported that fornication was tolerated among them, and even such fornication as was not heard of among the heathen, v. 1. He reproves them for being inflated, instead of being humbled and penitent, and excommunicating the offender, v. 2. As they had neglected their duty, he determined, in the name of Christ, and as spiritually present in their assembly, to deliver the man guilty of incest to Satan, vs. 3–5. He exhorts to purity, in language borrowed from the Mosaic law respecting the passover. As during the feast of the passover all leaven was to be removed from the habitations of the Hebrews, so the Christian’s life should be a perpetual paschal feast, all malice and hypocrisy being banished from the hearts and from the assemblies of believers, vs. 6–8. He corrects or guards against a misapprehension of his command not to associate with the immoral. He shows that the command had reference to church communion, and not to social intercourse; and therefore was limited in its application to members of the church. Those out of the church, it was neither his nor their prerogative to judge. They must be left to the judgment of God, vs. 9–13.
1. It is reported commonly (that there is) fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Having dismissed the subject of the divisions in the church of Corinth, he takes up the case of the incestuous member of that church. It is reported commonly (ὅλως ἀκούεται). This may mean what our translation expresses, viz., it was a matter of notoriety that fornication existed among them. Ὅλως may have the force of omnino, ‘nothing is heard of among you except, &c.’ Or it may mean, ‘In general, fornication is heard of among you.’ That is, it was a common thing that fornication was heard of; implying that the offence, in different forms, more or less prevailed. This is the less surprising, considering how little sins of that class were condemned among the heathen, and how notorious Corinth was for its licentiousness. To change the moral sentiments of a community is a difficult and gradual work. The New Testament furnishes sad evidence, that Jewish and Gentile converts brought into the church many of the errors of their former belief and practice. The word fornication (πορνεία) is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh commandment. Here a particular case is distinguished as peculiarly atrocious. The offence was that a man had married his step-mother. His father’s wife is a Scriptural periphrase for step-mother, Lev. 18:8. That it was a case of marriage is to be inferred from the uniform use of the phrase to have a woman in the New Testament, which always means, to marry. Matt. 14:4, 22:28; 1 Cor. 7:2, 29. Besides, although the connection continued, the offence is spoken of as past, vs. 2, 3. Such a marriage Paul says was unheard of among the Gentiles, that is, it was regarded by them with abhorrence. Cicero, pro Cluent. 5, 6 speaks of such a connection as an incredible crime, and as, with one exception, unheard of. It is probable from 2 Cor. 7:12, that the father of the offender was still alive. The crime, however, was not adultery, but incest; for otherwise the apostle would not have spoken of it as an unheard of offence, and made the atrocity of it to arise out of the relation of the woman to the offender’s father. We have here therefore a clear recognition of the perpetual obligation of the Levitical law concerning marriage. The Scriptures are a perfect rule of duty; and, therefore, if they do not prohibit marriage between near relatives, such marriages are not sins in the sight of God. To deny, therefore, the permanency of the law recorded in Lev. 18, is not only to go contrary to the authority of the apostle, but also to teach that there is for Christians no such crime as incest.
2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
They were puffed up, i. e. elated with the conceit of their good estate, notwithstanding they were tolerating in their communion a crime which even the heathen abhorred. Some have endeavoured to account for the occurrence of such an offence, and for the remissness of the church in relation to it, by supposing that both the offender and the church acted on the principle taught by many of the Jews, that all bonds of relationship were dissolved by conversion. The proselyte to Judaism became a new creature. He received a new name. His father was no longer his father, or his mother his mother. The Rabbins therefore taught that a proselyte might lawfully marry any of his nearest kindred. It is possible that such a notion may have partially prevailed among the Jewish portion of the church; but not very probable, 1. Because of its absurdity; 2. Because its prevalence among the Jews was only after their reprobation as a people; 3. Because the wiser class of the Jews themselves condemned it. It is more probable, if the crime was defended at all, it was on the principle that the Scriptures and nature condemn intermarriages on the ground only of consanguinity and not also of affinity. A principle opposed to Leviticus 18, and to what the apostle here teaches.