For *I*, [as] absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present,
Paul writes from far away about a scandal he never saw, and tells the Corinthians his verdict is already fixed. So what does it mean to be present with a church "in spirit," and how can a man judge a case from another city?
Paul is not an outside observer with an opinion. He speaks as one who belongs to that gathering and shares in what it does.
They should have acted without being told. Paul was not there in person, yet he had already acted — not as an outside witness, but as one present with them in spirit. These words deserve our close attention. In the unity of the body of Christ, the apostle was in spirit and sympathy wherever God's saints gathered, and he took a personal interest in what they did. Every true Christian has a proper interest in what the Church of God does and what it goes through.
The verse says "present" twice, and the two uses are not the same. One writer traces the difference to a single small word.
"As" belongs to the second "present," not the first. The first is clear enough from "in spirit," set against "absent in body." The second means the very opposite, so "as" is needed there — he means as if he were really there. Attached to the first, it would be wrong.
So the first is real: he is with them in spirit. The second is a comparison: he judges as if he stood in the room.
The judgment falls to Paul because nobody at Corinth would make it. Their failure was not just ignorance. It was pride — and pride over evil touches the whole gathering.
Those who feel a wrong but do not yet know the remedy have one resource: humbling themselves and prayer. Then the Lord would have acted for them, or given them to act for Him. Instead of this they were "puffed up" — which made the harm far worse… What strikes more directly at all common union in good, at all shared responsibility for evil? Where people allow such thoughts, they plainly ignore or forget the presence of the Holy Spirit. No believer would openly say that He can be a partner in sin. Yet that is what He must be, if evil is known and left unjudged where He dwells.
A verdict passed in advance sounds harsh until you see the case. The wrong was open and beyond dispute. At such a moment, sympathy for the offender pulls the conscience the wrong way.
The case was as bad as it could be, and there was no question about it. The facts could not be denied; the scandal was unheard of… Nobody raised the question whether the person might be converted. In fact, church discipline assumes that those it deals with are Christians. But when discipline is the question, it is not the time for a display of Christian affection. That would falsify the conscience and turn the eye away from the point where the Holy Spirit was directing attention.
Writers draw a careful line here. What Paul does rests on power that belongs to him as an apostle. It is not the ordinary act of a church.
Since Calvin's time especially, people have confused this with excommunication. But delivering to Satan is a power here linked with the assembly. It is like the giving of a gift in 1 Timothy 4:14, linked with the laying on of the hands of the elders. In both cases the result hinges on apostolic power. Yet the absence of that power in no way weakens the duty of putting away the guilty professing Christian, as verse 13 carefully lays down.
Yet Paul does not lean on that standing in the words he uses. He points instead to a power that is not his own.
He speaks as an apostle, yet he fully identifies himself with the church at Corinth as simply a member of the body of Christ. He does it by saying, "When you are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ" — not "with my apostolic power." He seeks to bring the consciences of the Corinthians into the presence of Christ, not into his own apostolic presence, so that they might act in the fear of Christ, and not in the fear of men.
- Absent — Paul's body was elsewhere, but the sin was not somebody else's business. Every Christian has a proper interest in what happens in the church of God.
- Present — The first "present" is real; the second is a comparison. He is with them in spirit, and judges as if he stood there.
- Judged — The facts were beyond dispute, so no debate was needed. When discipline is the question, it is not the moment for a display of affection.
- Unjudged — Corinth was puffed up instead of mourning. Evil known and left alone makes the Holy Spirit, who dwells there, look like a partner in it.
- Power — Paul names the power of the Lord Jesus, not his own apostolic weight. That moves their consciences into Christ's presence rather than his own.
[to deliver,] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), him that has so wrought this
The church at Corinth had a man living in gross sin among them, and they were doing nothing about it. Paul tells them how to deal with him. Verse 4 names three things that stand behind their action: a name, an assembly gathered, and a power.
Paul had already judged the case before his letter arrived. Working from an older translation, one writer weighs the small word "as":
"For I, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present concerning him who so did this." The best authorities give the sense this way. The word "as" belongs with the second "present," not the first. The first needs no such word, since "in spirit" already qualifies it, in contrast with "absent in body." The second means the opposite. There "as" is essential, for he means as if he were really there.
That name is not a label on a meeting. It is what gives the meeting any right to act.
The assembly was to act, and it acted "with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ." It met in His name, and His presence gave it this authority. Suppose it had been only a voluntary society of believers, who agree on certain principles of church government or doctrine and stand apart from others because of that. Then it could not have used the power spoken of here, for it could not have had Christ's presence. Such an assembly would have no more scriptural authority to bind and loose — to receive into fellowship or to put out — than a group of members of Parliament, meeting by their own choice in a public hall, has to pass laws.
The Lord Himself gave this principle, and one writer hears its echo in this verse:
Here the Lord teaches that His being "in the midst of them" is the power behind all authority in disciplining those who go wrong. It is also the secret of success in united prayer. "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." (Matt. 18:15-20.) These words appear only here. Yet note the striking echo of them in a case of assembly discipline at Corinth.
The verse calls the whole church together. That rules out a decision made by a few on everyone else's behalf.
But it is the assembly that must act. It acts not merely to comply with Paul's word, but "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" — that is, as representing Him. This is their solemn responsibility, and His authority stands behind it. No assembly has an excuse for failing to judge evil that is plainly there. And all the saints share the responsibility: they must not leave the matter to just a few in the assembly.
The power named here is not the assembly's own. One writer names it, and shows how far the assembly's act reaches:
Here we have the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, which rests on the whole Church (1 Cor. 1:2, 10), and His power, which is the Holy Spirit, who lives in the whole Body. So this is no act of a small body, for some larger and more authoritative body to review. It is the act of the Holy Spirit through this assembly — an act for the whole Body of Christ throughout the world, and binding on it.
An apostle could have leaned on his own rank. Notice which power he names:
Though he speaks as an apostle, he fully identifies himself with the church at Corinth, simply as a member of the body of Christ. He says, "when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ" — not "with my apostolic power." He wants to bring the consciences of the Corinthians into the presence of Christ, not into his own apostolic presence. Then they would act in the fear of Christ, and not in the fear of the apostle — that is, in the fear of men.
Verse 5 goes on to speak of handing this man over to Satan. One writer sets that act apart from ordinary excommunication:
Many, especially since Calvin's time, have confused this with excommunication. But delivering to Satan is a power tied here to the assembly, just as the giving of a gift in 1 Timothy 4:14 is tied to the laying on of the hands of the elders. In both cases the result hinges on apostolic power. Yet the lack of that power in no way weakens the duty of putting away the guilty person who professes to be a Christian, as verse 13 carefully lays down.
- Name — The assembly acts in the name of the Lord Jesus. That name, not the group's own agreement, gives its decision any authority.
- Presence — The Lord promised to be among two or three gathered in His name. That same promise stands behind discipline.
- Power — The power is His, and the Holy Spirit carries it out. So the act is not a small group's opinion. It binds the whole Body of Christ.
- Participation — All the saints are to be gathered for it. They cannot hand the responsibility to a few.
- Persistence — Delivering to Satan rested on apostolic power. The plain duty of verse 13, to put away the guilty person, still stands.
to deliver him, [I say,] [being] such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
This verse hands a sinning believer in the Corinthian assembly over to Satan, which sounds like abandonment. Yet its aim is rescue, not ruin — and that raises three questions: what "the flesh" means here, who could pass such a sentence, and how a man given to Satan can still be saved.
In that day, excommunication cost far more than a place in a group. One writer sets out what each side of the line meant.
Excommunication was a fearful thing in those days. The "within" was the sphere where God was known, and from which the light of His truth shone out. The "without" meant the world of paganism and Judaism — Satan's sphere. One might have thought the excommunication of this sinning believer would have been for his destruction. But no, it was for the destruction of the flesh. It was so that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Does this mean the man's body? One writer says no.
If anyone asks what the "destruction of the flesh" in 1 Corinthians 5:5 means, it does not refer to the body. It refers to the evil moral principle that is tied to the body in us all… The evil persons in question, having failed to learn their lessons in God's gracious school, had to be broken and humbled by Satan's cruel means. Divine discipline in all its forms is a deeply serious matter, but always with ultimate blessing in view.
Commentators differ here. One reads the delivering as the apostle's own act, resting on a power no longer available.
The first thing we may note is the apostolic power of delivering to Satan… Properly there is no such thing now. If a person is now put out of fellowship, he is not delivered to Satan, though he might come under Satan as a result… Throwing a man out into Satan's world is not delivering him or committing him to it. I know of nobody but the apostle who had the power… The church is not commanded to do it here. He says, I have judged already — to deliver such a one to Satan. This was his own act; he did not tell them to do so. He does tell them to put such a one out.
Another writer lays this act on the assembly, and draws a personal warning from it.
In 1 Corinthians 5 the assembly at Corinth is commanded to deliver the evildoer to Satan for the destruction of the flesh… A person put out of the assembly where the Holy Spirit ruled was handed over to the power of Satan. The aim was that his flesh might be thoroughly judged and crushed — serious but needed work! May we learn, dear friend, to judge ourselves in secret before our God, so the assembly may not have to deal with us. If the roots of evil are judged in private, the fruit will not appear above the surface of our practical life.
The enemy receives the man, but not what he wants.
Here we see a remarkable sample of God's power over the evil — indeed, of His use of it to fulfil His own holy purposes… The man is put into the hands of the adversary, who can now show himself plainly as the adversary he always is. He can serve himself no longer by the sin of one who has been expelled from the Christian assembly. So he has nothing left to do but show his hatred against one who has borne the name of Christ… God uses him, on the other hand, so that in the destruction of the flesh the spirit may yet be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
The severity has a destination.
Verse 5 shows that the ultimate end of discipline should be restoration. You deal with him as a member of Christ, and discipline him as such while he is within, and you put him outside so that he might be broken down and brought in again.
And the outcome named in the verse is not a hope that might fail.
If flesh had been indulged without shame, flesh must be galled and broken to pieces under the adversary's hand. But it was for good in the end — "so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." In fact, as the second epistle shows, the discipline blessed him in this world too. Yet the end named here cannot fail for anyone born of God, whatever the hindrances, or the shape of God's dealing with the soul.
- Sphere — Handing the man to Satan meant putting him outside, into Satan's world. Inside was the one place where God was known.
- Target — Not the body, but the evil principle in us — broken by the enemy's own cruel means.
- Overruled — Satan gets the man but not the outcome; God uses his hatred to fulfil His own holy purpose.
- Aim — The whole severe act aims at recovery: broken down outside, then brought in again.
- Certainty — For anyone born of God this end cannot fail: the spirit saved in the day of the Lord. So judge the roots in secret, and the assembly never has to deal with the fruit.
Your boasting [is] not good. Do ye not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
Paul has just told the Corinthian church to remove a man living in open immorality. Now he turns to the church that shrugged at the sin, with a question every baker could answer: can one member's sin stay private?
The word "boasting" describes the mood of the whole church, not one man's sin.
The Corinthian believers themselves were strangely unconcerned about the open immorality among them. In fact they were puffed up with pride and self-satisfaction, instead of all being humbled and ashamed before God. They should have been mourning over such wickedness among them. They should have been seeking to have the offender put out.
Paul points to something anyone who bakes already knows.
Add a small piece of leaven to a mass of pure dough, and it always gives its own character to the whole lump. Leaven spreads on its own and needs no human help. It works silently and unseen, until the hidden process of spreading and blending is complete and the result shows.
Evil does not sit still and wait to be dealt with.
Evil is an active force, and it never stops corrupting. Leave it in place — in our own hearts, or in our shared life as Christians — and it must corrupt the whole company. A spot of decay in an apple will ruin the whole apple. In the same way evil spreads through what is sound until the whole is corrupt. Soundness does not turn decay into health. It throws decay off, and we are told to purge out evil.
The verse has been misread as if Paul meant everyone would commit the same sin. The point is defilement, not imitation.
This passage warns the Corinthian church that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." Does that mean the Corinthian believers had all become incestuous, because they stayed in association with a man known to be incestuous? That would be absurd. The clear meaning is surely that staying in association with an incestuous man had defiled them... The Corinthians did not have to commit incest to be defiled. Nor did a person have to take in false teaching to be defiled by it. In both cases it was the deliberate association with known evil that defiled.
The verse cuts across a common instinct — that each person is answerable only for his own conduct.
Indifference to the Lord's honour, and carelessness about the conduct of those who professed His name, would, if kept up, give character to the whole assembly... Many will say, "I have only myself to look after: I am not responsible for other men's sins." Our Scripture gives a convincing answer to every heart that is willing to obey.
William Kelly names the idea behind that instinct, and what it costs.
That unholy idea is common today, even among Christians: we should not judge another person's evil, and each should only judge himself. Had they let it into their hearts? It destroys God's glory in the church. For what could strike more directly at all that we share in good, and at our shared responsibility for evil?
Paul repeats this line in his letter to the Galatians, and the two settings show its range.
The same words about leaven appear in 1 Corinthians 5:6 and in Galatians. At Corinth the leaven is self-indulgence, a moral corruption. In Galatians it is self-confidence, an evil in doctrine. In either case it is a mixture God hates.
Paul warns them of what leaven does — but he stops short of calling them a spoiled batch.
Of course, if they ignored the apostle's directions, their impure spiritual condition would grow worse and worse. Leaven by nature keeps working until it makes the whole mass like itself. But the worst had not yet come. So the apostle does not call the Corinthian assembly "a leavened lump." We will be wise to avoid saying it too, rather than go beyond Scripture.
- Boasting — Pride was the first thing Paul named. Where sin sat unjudged, they should have mourned and prayed for the offender's removal.
- Leaven — Its work is silent, automatic, and needs no help. Evil left alone does not stay small. Soundness does not absorb decay — it must throw it off.
- Lump — Nobody was a bystander. They had not copied the man's sin, but keeping his company defiled them.
- Responsibility — "I only have myself to look after" is the very thought this verse overturns. Shared indifference gives the whole church its character.
- Limits — The same saying covers moral evil at Corinth and false teaching in Galatia. Yet Paul never calls the Corinthians a leavened lump, and neither should we.
Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened. For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed;
Paul writes to a church that had allowed open sin, and he answers with a picture from Israel's Passover. He tells them to clear out the yeast, then says they are already unleavened.
Two questions come first: what does the yeast stand for, and why are Christians already free of it?
Leaven stands for corruption — evil that spreads, and evil that contaminates whatever it touches... Christ's sacrifice, shown in the Passover lamb, is what makes Christians unleavened: both the ground and the means.
Many read the "little leaven" saying in the verse before as a warning about what might happen later. Kelly reads it as a statement about what is already true, and quotes another writer:
It really means that a little leaven gives its character to the whole lump... "This is the meaning, and not that a little leaven will spread through the whole lump if it is not removed. You can see it from the point being made: their boasting did not fit their state. Their boasting is not exposed by some danger of corruption later on, but by the fact that their character is already lost."
The ESV says "Cleanse out"; older translations say "purge out." Either way the verb is strong, and the chapter says plainly what had to go.
The word in the original that is translated "purge" is a very strong one. It means not only to purge or cleanse but to cleanse out. The same word appears in 1 Corinthians 5:7, where it is rightly translated "purge out." They purged the evil out by putting the wicked person away from among themselves, as verse 13 of that chapter says.
Paul commands them to become what he says they already are. That looks like a contradiction until you separate two things.
Were they, then, leavened and unleavened at the same time? Yes, in two different ways. In Christ they were unleavened, as all of us who are Christians are, for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This sacrifice has made atonement for the sin in us... In Christ they were unleavened; but this very thing brought with it the claim and the responsibility to purge out the working of the old leaven. The principle they could not purge out; the working they could, and were bound to do.
That order matters. Obeying the command does not earn them a clean standing; it matches the one they already have.
The apostle therefore charges them to purge out the old leaven, so that they might be fresh dough, "as you really are unleavened." The saints are unleavened; it is not just that they ought to be. How they live rests on what they already are. Every effort to deny the purity of the church comes from the enemy... He never thinks of allowing sin on the ground that believers still have the old nature as well as the new. Was that old nature not crucified with Christ? If God has already carried out sentence on it, there is no excuse for allowing it.
The whole command rests on a sacrifice, and the Exodus story shows what that sacrifice did.
God was passing through in judgment to strike the guilty. Why should Israel not be struck? They were guilty too... They were to put the blood on the doorposts, so that they would be safe when judgment passed by. God said, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt." That is, the blood of the slain victim — the picture of the true Lamb — kept them safe from judgment.
The calendar itself makes a point here: one feast ran straight into the next.
The feast of unleavened bread came straight after the Passover. Not one day fell between them... The New Testament treats the feast of unleavened bread as starting with the killing of the Passover lamb. In the same way, the Christian's first response to Christ's blood is to walk in holiness. From then on God will not let him claim a single day for himself.
- Sacrifice first. The command rests on a death already done. The blood of the lamb stood between guilty people and the judgment passing through.
- Standing next. Because of that sacrifice, believers are unleavened. Kelly says this is what they are, not just what they ought to be.
- Then the purge. The word means to cleanse out. In Corinth that meant putting the man out, not just disapproving of him.
- Character, not risk. One tolerated sin is not just a future danger. It gives its character to the whole lump now.
- With no delay. Passover and unleavened bread ran back to back. The answer to Christ's blood is a holy walk from day one.
so that let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.
Paul has just said that Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. The meal that follows the lamb is Israel's week of unleavened bread, and it raises three questions: how long the feast lasts, what the leaven means, and what "sincerity and truth" look like day by day.
The order in the verse matters. The command to keep the feast follows from a death that has already happened.
This feast then is the natural result of the Passover. It is the putting away of all evil because Christ has died to sin once. It is the answer in us to the work of Christ on the cross. If He has died to sin, then we must die to it in a practical way in our Christian pathway.
That order also settles the motive.
We do not keep the feast of unleavened bread to become holy or to gain our place in the fellowship. "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10). The measure of our sanctification is that Christ was slain for us... We keep the feast of unleavened bread of sincerity and truth for one reason. Only in this way can we live in keeping with the place God has set us in. We do not keep it to reach that place. Grace has already given it to us.
How far does this feast reach? One writer rules out the narrowest answer first.
To apply 1 Corinthians 5:8 to the matter of having bread without yeast or unfermented wine at the Lord's Supper would be strange and miserable. We believe, dear friend, the feast refers to the whole of our Christian life in this world. From first to last it should be a feast of unleavened bread. It rests on the great fact that Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. It is a life of personal holiness flowing out of a finished redemption.
The feast is shared, so it touches how an assembly handles evil among those who break bread together.
Leaven — the allowance of sinful practice — will spoil the feast dreadfully. Israel kept leaven strictly out of the Passover. In the same way, an assembly must not tolerate a course of evil conduct in anyone who shares in the breaking of bread. The same holds where the leaven is false doctrine, as other scriptures insist... Our Lord serves no contaminated food at His feast. We are to be filled only with what is pure and good.
Paul names old leaven first, then the leaven of malice and evil. These are two different things.
Leaven always stands in Scripture for the energy or activity of evil. It may show in outward conduct, or work in the mind and desires, where it always begins. So the apostle urges the Corinthians to keep the feast, "not with old leaven" — their evil habits and ways before they were converted — "neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness." We must refuse and judge everything of that character, or we cannot keep the feast. Then there is the positive side, the eating of "the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." Only in this way can the feast be kept.
So a clean break with the past is not enough, because fresh evil can arise where the old kind was abandoned.
There might be new forms of evil besides those of old habits and associations. But as all leaven had to be shut out by the Jew, so the Christian is solemnly called to deal unsparingly with evil in every shape.
The word "sincerity" carries a picture in it.
In Philippians 1:10 we get the word "sincere". There it means "pure when viewed in the sunlight." Hold a glass, or a drop of water, up to the sun, and you may find it quite pure... So "sincerity" means letting the clear sunshine of God's light in His Word shine on our walk and ways, and then judging whatever I find contrary to it. But who lets that light shine into his ways and finds nothing but what is pure? Only One, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is "the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
In practice this reaches the motives behind conduct, not just the conduct itself.
Sincerity means for us true uprightness of heart. We must let no unworthy motive work in the mind and heart. We must practise no guile or double-dealing. We must not take up an outward position or manner that does not match the desire and purpose of our hearts. The truth is to affect and form us in all the moral springs from which our actions flow.
The word Paul chose is worth holding on to.
It is a feast and not a fast. We must not be all the time saying to ourselves, "now I must not do this," and "don't do that"... Where do we find sincerity and truth? In Christ... seven days of the week we are to feed on Christ as the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. As we feed on Christ in that character, you may be sure of this: we shall not need the "don'ts" and "you mustn'ts."
- Cause — The lamb comes before the loaf: the feast is the answer in us to a death already accomplished, not a way of earning standing.
- Length — The feast is not one meal but seven days: it covers the whole of a Christian's life in this world.
- Leaven — Two sorts are named: the old habits of life before conversion, and the malice and evil that work in the mind. Both must be judged.
- Sincerity — Pure when held up to the sunlight: it reaches motives, not only actions, and only Christ answers to it fully.
- Feast — The positive side is eating, not only refusing. Feed on Christ all week, and the "don'ts" take care of themselves.
I have written to you in the epistle not to mix with fornicators;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the avaricious and rapacious, or idolaters, since [then] ye should go out of the world.
Paul's line falls around the Christian's fellowship, not the Christian's contacts. Avoiding every immoral or greedy person alive would mean leaving the world — so what does "keep company" forbid, and where does the real boundary fall?
One writer weighs the obvious reading of Paul's words against the clause that closes the verse.
At first sight, "company with" and "keeping company with" look as if they mean the outside contact a man has with a worldly man in business of any kind. But the apostle sets that reading aside when he adds, "not of this world, for then you would have to go out of the world."
The same writer breaks the Greek word into its three parts.
The meaning and use of the word is much stronger than casual, outside contact. It is a compound word made from three words: SUN, together with; ANA, thoroughly; and MIGNUMI, mingled. Matthew 27:34 uses that last word for the sour wine mixed with gall given to our Lord on the cross. … To me the compound word expresses what we call "the intimacy of loving friends" more than anything else.
The ESV reads "not at all," where older versions read "not altogether." One commentator settles the sense from the last clause of the verse.
The best versions, ancient and modern, that I can access… seem to give the same sense as the Authorised Version. In my opinion that sense must follow from the last clause of the verse. What is "for then you must go out of the world," but proof of how useless it is to try to avoid all worldly bad men? The apostle goes on to show what the command not to keep company means. It refers to fellowship of any kind with guilty so-called brothers.
Many say that daily work makes some sharing in the world's ways unavoidable. One writer denies it, and points to this verse.
The Word does not allow the possibility of our living out of the world. On the contrary, it teaches us that we are left in it, but that we are kept from the evil (John 17:15; 1 Corinthians 5:10). … A true Christian works honestly at his trade to earn his bread, but his real aim is everlasting glory with Christ.
Another writer marks the difference between mixing with people and being tied to them.
It is a question, note, of a yoke. The believer is left in the world, and comes into contact with all sorts, as 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 shows. While mixing with all sorts he must be careful to avoid a yoke with any. The most intimate and permanent yoke the world knows is that of marriage. A believer may yoke himself with an unbeliever by a business partnership.
Leaving the world is the escape route many sincere people have tried, shutting themselves away in monasteries. One commentator warns that the attempt defeats itself.
People may follow that idea with walls of thick stone, or without them. The result is the same. If we turn God-ordained separation into monastic isolation, we will always end up breeding the very evils we are supposed to be avoiding, right inside our own seclusion. … The world does present, so to speak, infectious germs from outside. But the main trouble lies in ourselves — the weakness of the flesh within.
If not around the world, then where? The boundary runs through the Christian company itself.
The apostle urges Christians to exercise holy discipline and live a life of sincerity and truth. He shows that he means the Christian circle. To extend either of these to the man of the world would be unreal and impossible. … It is no business of the Christian to try to put the world right by judging its evil. God will do this in His own time.
The same sin carries a different weight when the sinner wears Christ's name.
The believer is not told to avoid the world's sexually immoral people, the greedy, swindlers and idolaters, since they are everywhere around. Their evil was not a direct dishonour to God. It was otherwise with one who was called a brother and was living in ongoing sin. This was a denial in practice of the Lord he claimed to serve.
- Word. "Keep company" comes from a word meaning thoroughly mingled together. It means the closeness of intimate friends, not daily business contact.
- World. The verse itself rules out avoiding every immoral person. You would have to leave the world to do it.
- Walls. Separation turned into seclusion breeds the very evils it flees. The trouble is the flesh within.
- Yoke. The believer mixes with all sorts but ties himself to none. Marriage and business partnership are the strongest ties.
- Within. The line falls inside the Christian company. A professing believer's sin dishonours the Lord he claims, while God Himself judges those outside.
But now I have written to you, if any one called brother be fornicator, or avaricious, or idolater, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, not to mix with [him]; with such a one not even to eat.
This verse turns from the world outside to people who share the Christian name, and the line it draws cuts through friendship as well as the assembly. Two questions follow: why is the standard stricter inside than outside, and how far does "not even to eat" reach?
These sins also fill the streets of any city. The sting is not in the sins but in who commits them.
God's people were to have no fellowship with him at all, not even to eat a common meal with him. But there is a necessary distinction here. The believer is not told to avoid the sexually immoral, the greedy, the swindlers and the idolaters of the world, for they are everywhere around. Their evil was not a direct dishonour to God, as it was in someone who was called a brother and lived a sinful life. His life denied the Lord he claimed to serve.
Treat the six words as a legal checklist of offences, and the results turn absurd.
Verse 11 is not a list of those who are to be put out. There is no such list. This would leave a thief or a murderer in communion. It can be hard to know a greedy man. Some cases are plain enough. But care with money in a family sits so close to greed that you can draw no line. If a case arises, and the assembly is spiritual, the Lord will make it clear.
Two of the six words are worth defining. One reaches past statues and images. The other, whom the ESV calls a "reviler," names a sin of the tongue that stands beside drunkenness and immorality.
An idolater is someone who gives divine honour to idols or images, or who gives excessive reverence or love to any human person or thing. A railer is an abusive person. He is quarrelsome, rude, noisy and bad-tempered, and he attacks others with vile slander and abusive language. As William Kelly has said, "A habit of evil speaking marks the man who practices it as a railer, and such a man is unfit for the company of saints, for God's assembly."
This verse guards the assembly, but it could also become a weapon. Commentators point out that its wording carries its own safeguard.
Even a true and holy judgment of evil can become a trap if it is not kept within proper limits. Our hearts are naturally deceptive, so it can turn into mere fault-finding and proud self-righteousness. The directions given here are worded to guard against this serious danger. They call for positive proof of sin: "if he is guilty of sexual immorality," and so on. The sin must be openly known and clearly established by enough reliable testimony. That is the ground for such judgment, whether for public discipline or for private contact. Without this safeguard, a groundless slander could gain the weight and authority of a divine command.
Many read the last clause as barring the offender from the Lord's Supper only. Commentators say it reaches lower than that, to the ordinary table.
If anyone called a brother is impure, or greedy, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler, we are not to mix with him: "not even to eat with such a one." He does not mean only that we should refuse him the Lord's Supper. We should not eat even the smallest meal with him. Avoid the corrupt or violent man who claims the name of Christ even in an everyday social act, not only at the most solemn moment of Christian worship.
Darby draws out how that works in daily life, including where the ties are closest:
Here in 1 Corinthians 5:11 it says, "not even to eat." I would not dine with such a one; I would give him food if he were hungry, but not eat with him. Take a wife whose husband is put out. It may seem awkward. But she is not keeping company with him by her own will; she is submitting to authority.
This looks cold. Commentators place the love on the other side of the line: a believer who walks with the world is harder to reach than an unbeliever.
With a worldly person who does not bear Christ's name, one at least thinks of speaking to him of grace. But it is hard to speak of grace to a Christian who knows his privileges and walks with the world, because he abuses it. Love does not consist in walking with such people, but in warning them. In the command "not even to eat with such a one" there is love.
The measure has an end in view, and it is not permanent exclusion.
We are to leave such a person alone and make him feel the seriousness of his sin, so that he may break down, repent, and be restored to the Lord.
- Name. The Christian name worn over a sinful course triggers the rule; the world outside is not the target.
- Sample. The six words are examples of wickedness, not a closed legal list; a spiritual assembly will see the case clearly when it comes.
- Proof. The case must rest on open, established evidence, so no rumour can borrow the authority of a divine command.
- Table. "Not even to eat" reaches past the Lord's Supper to the everyday meal, because shared food is the sign of fellowship.
- Return. The whole measure is love aimed at repentance; the separation lasts only until the person returns.
For what have *I* [to do] with judging those outside also? *ye*, do not ye judge them that are within?
Paul has just told the Corinthians to stay away from anyone who calls himself a Christian and lives in open sin. His question draws a line: there is a circle he is responsible for, and a world outside it that he is not.
The words "inside" and "outside" were not vague to the first readers. They described two known spheres, and everyone could tell which side they stood on.
In the early days, everyone who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ understood the terms "within" and "without" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13; Colossians 4:5), and the limits were clear. Within were all who claimed to be believers in the Lord, and who, as far as anyone could tell, really were. Without were all who had not taken Christian ground. Within was the sphere where the Spirit of God ruled and lived. Without was the region where the god of this world was in control.
Paul's question rules something out. The standards of Christian discipline were never meant for people who never claimed Christ.
In the verses that follow, the apostle urges Christians to exercise holy discipline and live a life of sincerity and truth. He shows that he is speaking about the Christian circle. To extend either to the man of the world would be unreal and impossible… It is not the Christian's job to put the world right by judging its evil. God will do that in His own time. Our responsibility is to judge any evil that shows itself in the Christian company.
No one can read another person's heart. What counts is the position a person openly takes.
We are not to judge those "without," but we are to judge those "within." That is, all who take the ground of being Christians — of being members of God's assembly — come within the range of judgment. The very moment a man enters the assembly, he takes his place in that sphere. There discipline deals with everything contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there.
Many Christians quote the Lord's words in Matthew 7 as if all judging were forbidden. Commentators note that the same sermon calls for discernment.
Few passages in the New Testament are so misunderstood and misapplied as Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, that you be not judged." In the very same chapter we read, "Beware of false prophets… you will recognize them by their fruits." Now, how are we to "beware" if we do not exercise judgment?
The line falls between two spheres, not between judging and not judging. Another writer shows why this duty exists and what it costs:
There is no call to discipline the evildoers of the world. But Christians must deal with offenders in God's assembly. Though absent, Paul had to judge that the wicked person should be put out. It was due to Christ and His sacrifice. God must be vindicated, since the assembly is His. The saints had to clear themselves in the matter, taking up the offender's sin as their own. Yet even here the aim was his ultimate good.
Leaving the world alone is not leaving it safe. Paul leaves that whole sphere to God, and the timing is His.
The world is not yet the sphere of divine judgment, but His children are. The Father judges them without favouritism, and the church is bound to do the same. By and by the world will be not only judged but condemned. So the believer should be all the more eager to judge himself. Otherwise grace would get a bad name, as if it tried to cover up evil. But even if he fails, the Lord does not. The Lord disciplines him with a divine judgment, so that he will not be condemned with the world.
Because those outside belong to God's judgment, discipline has a limit. Once someone is put out, the assembly has no further case to try — but it still has something to do.
When exclusion is the only way left to keep the assembly holy, discipline ends there, for God judges those who are "without." But godly concern and prayer still have their place, in keeping with the grace that seeks the lost in the world. And there will be a watching to see how God continues His work in the soul of one who has failed. Then the longed-for moment can be welcomed with joy.
- Boundary — Scripture draws a line: those who have taken Christian ground, and those who have not.
- Assignment — The world is not the church's case to try. God will judge it in His own time.
- Entry — A person comes under this judgment the moment he takes the place of being a Christian. No one can read his heart; the position he takes is what counts.
- Obligation — Inside the circle, judging is a command, not an option. "Judge not" never excuses tolerating evil.
- Limit — Discipline ends at exclusion. God takes over those outside, leaving the assembly with prayer and watchfulness, not verdicts.
But those without God judges. Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves.
The chapter ends by drawing a line: God judges the world outside, and the gathering of believers must judge itself. The closing command is sharp, and it raises hard questions: who can be removed, how far the separation goes, and whether it still applies.
(The writers below quote an older translation: "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The ESV says, "Purge the evil person from among you.")
Paul refuses to judge outsiders. He tells the assembly to judge everyone who claims a place inside it.
We are not to judge those "outside," but we are to judge those "inside." That is, anyone who takes the ground of being a Christian — of being a member of God's assembly — comes within the range of judgement. The moment a man enters the assembly, he takes his place in a sphere where discipline deals with everything contrary to the holiness of the One who dwells there.
The wording is narrow, and that protects people. Only proven wickedness counts — not a single fault, and not a suspicion.
It is important to notice that it is wicked persons and only such that are to be put away from the company of believers. "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." It would be very wrong to put away someone who had slipped into a fault, or someone who had only committed a single offense. When the assembly applies this discipline, its first duty is to be sure the person is really wicked. This must be proved and clear to all. Mere suspicion of evil will not do.
It is also wrong to use the label on someone who has already left.
It is a mistake in any case; in some it would be a gross wrong. The assembly cannot put out one who has already gone out; it makes no sense. Sometimes leaving is only an act of ignorance. Someone used to a sermon every Sunday morning may grow tired of worship in spirit and truth. How cruel and unjust to brand the weak one, unspiritual though he may be, as "a wicked person"!
The phrase is not "from the Lord's table" but "from among yourselves," and that difference matters.
Some object to saying "from the Lord's table," but the command goes even further. It says, "from among yourselves." Putting someone away from the table alone might, for a careless person, fit quite well with treating that person as one of themselves in every other way. But the apostle Paul shows how much farther this "putting away" goes. He adds, "with such a one, no, not to eat." They were to refuse all association, even an ordinary meal!
The aim is not punishment. It is protection.
Putting one away as a wicked person is like cutting off a limb of one's own body. It is a very painful and grievous thing, and only done when there is no hope of saving the limb. The amputation is performed to preserve the body from the poison in the diseased limb. In the same way, putting away an evil person is necessary to prevent the leaven from spreading in the assembly.
Does this command still stand today? One writer answers by separating a command from an act of power.
"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person" has its own simple authority that nothing can take away. It applies to an assembly. Wherever a wicked person is in an assembly, the case it applies to is there, and it is a simple matter of obedience. There are acts of power, as in "I have judged to deliver to Satan." Paul does not say, You do it. He does it in all the solemnity of the assembled saints, but there is no command — it is a personal act of power.
Putting away comes last, and it still has a goal beyond itself.
Many have said and agreed that putting away from among yourselves should be the last measure we turn to. We use it only when all patience and all grace have run out, and when letting the evil continue any longer would only dishonour the name of the Lord. On the other hand, putting away always aims at restoring the person it falls on. It is never done to get rid of him. So it is in God's ways with us.
This command sits between two others that are often confused with it, and each governs a different situation.
The first speaks of evil professors of the Lord, who are not our objects of extermination, but living in the field of the world till judgment falls at the end of the age. The second commands the wicked man to be at once put out of the church. The third provides for the day when the professing church sanctions vessels to dishonour, from which the faithful soul is bound to purge himself.
- Inside — the assembly judges those who claim a place within it; God judges the world outside.
- Established — only proven wickedness qualifies; a fault, a suspicion, or a quiet departure does not.
- Among yourselves — the separation covers ordinary social contact, not just the Lord's table.
- Obedience — it is a plain command to the gathered saints, distinct from Paul's personal act of delivering to Satan.
- Restoration — the last resort exists to recover the person, never to be rid of him.