1 Corinthians 5:10

The καί, and, which begins this verse in the T. R., is too little supported to be authentic.

The words οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις naturally have the effect of an explanatory apposition added to the πόρνοις at the end of 1 Corinthians 5:9, in this sense: “When I spoke of fornicators in my letter, I did not thereby mean all the fornicators of this world in general.” After all attempts to explain this οὐ πάντως differently, it seems to me that this is the interpretation which holds good. Only, it logically implies that by the phrase, the fornicators of this world, Paul denotes, not only those who are without the Church, but those also who profess the gospel. It is the only way of explaining the οὐ πάντως, which is not the absolute negative, like πάντως οὐ, absolutely not, but, on the contrary, a restricted negative (not absolutely, not entirely): I wrote to you to break with fornicators, not with fornicators in general, which would oblige you to go out of the world, but with those only who profess the gospel. This is the meaning adopted by Neander, Hofmann, and others. It is objected that the phrase, the fornicators of this world, must be exclusive of those of the Church. Why so? The idea is simply, “not generally with all the fornicators living with you in this world.” Such is evidently the meaning of the word world in the following sentence. Meyer has thought that it is to mark the difference between these two meanings given to the word world that Paul rejects the τούτου, this, in the following sentence. But it may also be to avoid an awkward and useless repetition. As to those who, like Meyer, de Wette, Edwards, hold that the fornicators of this world must here be necessarily contrasted with those of the Church, they are thrown into embarrassment by the οὐ πάντως, and they apply it solely to the limitation of relations with these fornicators: “I meant you not to have relations too complete (πάντως) with non-Christian fornicators,” which would authorize restricted relations, without which life in the world would be impossible. But this meaning is not natural; for what Paul here distinguishes is not the greater or less degree of intimacy in relations to impure heathen; he is contrasting with the relation to impure heathen, which he authorizes, the relation to impure Christians, which he forbids.

We do not take account here of the interpretations which separate οὐ from πάντως, connecting the former with the verb ἔγραψα, and the latter with the verb συναναμίγνυσθαι, a separation far from natural, nor of that of Rückert, who understands οὐ πάντως almost as if it were πάντως οὐ, absolutely not, though Paul knows perfectly the use and meaning of this form; comp. 1 Corinthians 16:12. However this may be, the view of the apostle remains substantially the same: the rupture which he demands is not applicable to the vicious in general, but only to those who lay claim to the name of Christians.

To libertinism Paul adds covetousness as to earthly goods, and that in the two forms of πλεονεξία, which, to have more, uses fraudulent and indelicate processes, like usury, and that of ἁρπαγή, injustice by violent means. These two words are connected, not by ἤ, or, but by καί, and, as two species of one and the same genus.

Idolaters, as such, would seem to be an impossibility in the Church; but there might be Corinthians who, after believing, had kept up habits of idolatry; and chap. 8 will show us that many of them could not bring themselves to give up the banquets to which they were invited in idol temples. These three vices, fornication, covetousness, idolatry, are related, as Estius and Edwards observe, the first to the individual himself, the second to his neighbours, the third to God.

It is evident that in a city like Corinth, to break off all connection with persons of these three categories would have been for a man to condemn himself to live as a hermit. This is probably what the Corinthians had retorted with a measure of irony; and so the apostle, no less than they, rejects an idea so absurd. The majority of the Mjj. read ὠφείλετε, ye would need, which gives a simple sense. T. R. with P and Chrysostom reads ὀφείλετε, ye need, a form which is also, though less easily, intelligible: “Since, if it is so, ye need...” Calvin, starting from this reading, has given the sentence a quite different meaning: “For ye need really to separate yourselves from the world (morally).” But the particle ἄρα, then, indicates, on the contrary, a consequence from what precedes.

And now Paul establishes his true thought.