Sufficient to such a one [is] this rebuke which [has been inflicted] by the many;
The Corinthians had put a man out of their fellowship for serious sin, as Paul told them to in 1 Corinthians 5. He has now repented, and Paul says the punishment has done its work and should go no further.
Paul measures the punishment by what it achieved.
It is clear that they had obeyed Paul's instructions to put the man away. Now it is just as serious that the man be restored. The discipline had reached its proper end. It led the man to judge himself and to stop his sin.
That is the whole logic of the verse. Discipline never exists just to punish.
This, of course, is the end that discipline is designed to reach. Discipline does not fall on believers who go wrong just to punish them. It aims to bring them to repentance and so restore them, both in their souls and to their place of fellowship among God's people. This happy end was reached in the case of the offender at Corinth.
Some have read the word as a mere reprimand that stopped short of putting the man out. Kelly argues from the letter itself that this cannot stand.
He adds that the rebuke or punishment already inflicted by the many was enough. That would not be true if they had not carried out the sentence of exclusion. Not a word suggests that a lighter rebuke, short of that, had stopped the evil and brought the wrongdoer to repentance.
What made it bite was precisely that it came from his own brothers, not from a distant authority.
The main point here is that God's discipline in His house takes its true effect through the fellowship of the church. An apostle could and did deal directly with an evildoer or a teacher of false doctrine when that was needed (1 Tim. 1:20). But God's normal way of censuring a Christian is by the shared decision of his fellow believers… The punishment was enough because his own brothers, by a solemn act of the whole assembly, had driven the offender out of the fold of Christ. He was cut off from the assembly of His saints — not from the Lord, whose discipline is part of the mercy He has promised.
The ESV reads "by the majority". Older translations render the same words "by the many", and that is the wording the commentators discuss. So does it mean one side outvoting another? Commentators read it as the whole body acting together, though they read the wording in different ways. Darby takes the Greek to mean the whole company:
As to a majority in discipline: I know nothing of majorities. I know Christ's authority, joined to the working of the Holy Spirit… If a godly man moved by the fear of God has a serious and real difficulty, the assembly may wait for him. Then the action is the act of "the many" (2 Cor. 2:6), the act of the conscience of the body, for they have to prove themselves clear in the matter. Among the Corinthians the wrongdoer stood alone and was deeply humbled, and "the many" meant them all… A majority can never act as such.
Grant allows that not every individual may have been fully with it, yet still calls it "a true assembly judgment, in obedience to God."
Once repentance is real, keeping the sentence in force no longer serves righteousness. It only harms the man.
What wisdom we need, in practical matters, to hold the balance between the claims of righteousness and love. We must remember that all discipline comes in righteousness, whether God Himself gives it or men do, and its aim is to produce repentance. When repentance comes, love claims the right to reign. Let us not keep striking a repentant soul in discipline, or we may come under God's discipline ourselves.
Ridout puts the same warning in terms of timing. Needless delay is itself a fault.
On the other hand, the assembly needs to guard against a hard, unforgiving spirit. When the consciences of all are satisfied, they should confirm their love to their recovered brother without needless delay… How gracious, how loving, and yet how holy, are all these directions!
- Enough. Paul's word "enough" is a verdict on results. The man had judged himself and stopped, so the sentence had done all it was for.
- Exclusion. The punishment here was the real putting out of 1 Corinthians 5. A lighter rebuke would not explain the repentance Paul describes.
- The many. It carried weight as the act of his own brothers — the conscience of the whole body, not a vote won by the stronger side.
- Restoration. Discipline aims at recovery — of the soul, and of the person's place among God's people. Here it had reached that goal.
- Stop. When righteousness has done its work, love takes over. Keeping up the pressure on a repentant believer invites God's discipline on those who do it.
so that on the contrary ye should rather shew grace and encourage, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with excessive grief.
In Paul's first letter the church at Corinth put a sinning man out, and the discipline has broken him down. Now Paul turns them the other way, because the assembly that was slow to judge is now in danger of being slow to restore.
Paul is not softening the earlier sentence; he is saying it has succeeded.
It is clear that they had obeyed Paul's instructions to put away the man. Now it is just as serious that the man be restored. The discipline had done its proper work: it led the man to judge himself and stop his sin... Now they are to forgive him openly, and comfort or encourage him. Otherwise discipline could be pushed so far that it swallows the man up in sorrow.
This forgiveness is not about the man's standing before God. It is the church taking him back to his place among God's people.
The apostle directs the assembly to forgive him. The punishment had been enough, and they were again to show their love to him. This was no question of his being the righteousness of God, or of his part in it. It was a question of the government of the Church, and of keeping it holy here below. While he lived in his wickedness the man could not enjoy the blessed privileges that belonged to the assembly. They had put him out; now, humbled and repentant, he was to be forgiven.
Grief over sin is right, but Paul sets a boundary to it. There is a moment when continued sorrow stops helping and starts destroying.
The danger now was that the Corinthian assembly, in their zeal against his sin, would overlook his sorrow. They would not forgive him as an assembly and give him back his place among them... Sorrow for sin is good; yet there is a point where it becomes too much and does harm — a point where sorrow should stop and the man should know the joy of forgiveness. The joy of the Lord, and not sorrow for sin, is our strength.
Corinth swung from ignoring the sin to refusing to let the man back. One writer names what lies under both.
They needed now to show grace and encourage, in case the one in question should be swallowed up with the excessive grief he seemed to be showing. It is quite possible for us to swing from one extreme to the other — from being too lax to being too hard. Both extremes come from a lack of true love. Real love will neither make light of the evil, nor lose sight of its aim, which is to win the sinner away from his sin.
The ESV says the man may be overwhelmed; older translations say he may be swallowed up. One writer sees a real danger behind those words, and the enemy at work in the man's grief.
Overwhelming sorrow came upon the man, and Satan, ever watchful, tried to turn it to his own purpose. Had the man destroyed himself, it would have been no wonder, Satan being at work. But God's end would not have been gained. Paul writes to the assembly again: "My grief is past; your chastening of the man has broken him down, he is overwhelmed; receive him, and restore him; I beg you, confirm your love to him."
One writer traces the enemy's strategy across both letters:
This is what the devil was doing. The apostle had insisted on putting the man out (1 Cor. 5:3-5), and the church did not like it. He forced them to act; they carried it out as a judgment, and then did not want to restore him (2 Cor. 2:6-7). So he makes them go with him in the act of restoration... Satan's plan was to bring the wickedness in, to make them careless about it, and afterwards to make them act as mere judges.
Paul had real authority from the Lord, and he had used it before. Here he chooses not to command, so that the forgiving would be their own act.
He does not at all speak as a spiritual dictator, however real and great the authority given him of the Lord... It would have brought the assembly no real healing if they had forgiven the offender only because the apostle had forgiven him and told them to. When the open evil went unjudged, he did command that the man be put out. But now that grace had worked all round... he wants them to forgive, and he will go with them in it. It is not, therefore, "whom I forgive, you also," but "to whom you forgive anything, I also."
- Enough. The punishment has done its work. Once the sin is judged and stopped, taking the man back is as serious a duty as putting him out was.
- Forgive. The church takes a repentant man back into its fellowship. This is not about his standing before God.
- Comfort. Sorrow for sin is good, but only up to a point. Past that the man needs the joy of forgiveness, for the joy of the Lord is our strength.
- Confirm. They must prove their love to him. Real love will neither make light of the sin nor give up on the man, so being too lax and being too hard fail alike.
- Outwit. Satan aimed first at careless tolerance, then at hard delay. He loses when the whole assembly forgives together, with Paul joining them instead of commanding them.