1 Corinthians 5:3

“For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have decided already, as though I were present, [to deliver over] him that hath so done this deed...”

The for is thus explained: “Such is what you ought to have done; for, as for me, this is what I have done. The μέν, to which there is no corresponding δέ, serves to isolate Paul, putting him in contrast to the Church, and so strengthens the force of the ἐγώ, I: “I, for my part, while you...!”

The first ὡς, as, is rejected by the majority of the Mjj., perhaps wrongly; it has been thought incompatible with the following ὡς before the second παρών. But these two ὡς may have their distinct value. The first bears strictly on the second participle: present in spirit. It signifies: “So far as absent in body, no doubt, but really present spiritually.” It is the as which serves to express the real character in which the person acts; the second signifies, on the contrary, as if. Paul would bring out this contrast: “As for you who were present, you did nothing; and as for me, distant from you though I am, yet living spiritually among you, this is how I acted!” The word already has great force here, whether it signifies, “while you remained inactive, you wise and eloquent preachers;” or whether Paul rather means, “before even arriving among you.”

The verb κέκρικα may be rendered by I have judged, or I have decided. Not being able to say [in French] judged to deliver, we have used the second term; but in a passage of a judicial character like this the verb ought to express rather the idea of a sentence pronounced than of a simple resolution taken. This is undoubtedly what has led Hofmann and Edwards to give this verb for its direct object the following accusative: τὸν κατεργασάμενον, him who has thus acted. Now, as the verb παραδοῦναι (1 Corinthians 5:5) can be nothing else than the object of κέκρικα, we must hold in this case a mixture of two constructions, “I have judged this man,” and “I have judged to deliver him over to Satan.” This rather forced interpretation seems to me unnecessary. It is simpler to make τὸν κατεργασάμενον the object of παραδοῦναι, and τὸν τοιοῦτον (1 Corinthians 5:5) the grammatical repetition of the object, a repetition occasioned by the interposition of 1 Corinthians 5:4.

But the important question is, whether the παραδοῦναι, the act of delivering over, the object of I have judged, or decided, should be regarded as the result of a future decision which Paul proposes to be taken by the Corinthians themselves, or whether he thinks of it as a decision already taken and decreed between God and him. Commentators agree in holding the first sense. Paul waits, they say, till, in consequence of the decision which he has taken by himself, the Church of Corinth shall assemble and pronounce a sentence in keeping, if one may so speak, with his premonition. This meaning is open to certain doubts. Would not Paul say in that case: “I have decided that the man should be delivered over,” and not: “I have judged to deliver him over ”? It might therefore be supposed that the judicial assembly of which the apostle speaks has already taken place at the time of his writing, and that the three deputies represented the Church in his presence. Thus the three acts would be naturally explained: κέκρικα, συναχθέντων, παραδοῦναι. But the participle συναχθέντων would in this sense require rather to be placed before κέκρικα, and the idea of a purely spiritual presence would rather apply to the Church than to Paul. We must therefore return to the ordinary explanation. Only there is not the faintest hint of making the pronouncing of the sentence dependent on the vote of the assembly which is to be held at Corinth, as if the apostle's decision could be annulled by the contrary opinion of a majority. For his part (μέν), everything is decided, and with his apostolical competency he has judged to deliver over [the offender]; there will be joined to him, in the assembly which he convokes to take part in this terrible act, whoever wishes and dares.

The apparent pleonasm, οὕτω τοῦτο, “who has so done this,” has been variously explained. The word so is said to signify, “as a Christian,” or “with the aggravating circumstances which you know,” etc. It seems to me that we have here one of those circumlocutions in which judicial sentences delight. The protocol of a tribunal would be precisely expressed in this way. The object is to exactly define the deed, with all the circumstances known or unknown which make it what it is: its publicity, the shamelessness of its author, etc. In fact, these last words of 1 Corinthians 5:3 contain, as it were, the preamble to the sentence delivered; and, in what immediately follows, everything bears a very pronounced judicial character.

But the essential thing with the apostle is not that the sentence be delivered, it is that it be so with the assent of the Church. For his aim, besides the saving of the guilty one, is to awaken the conscience of the whole community, its energetic protest against the scandal which it has witnessed till now in silence. And such is the intent of 1 Corinthians 5:4, which indicates three things: 1. the assembly which is to take place; 2. its competency; 3. its power of execution. We are thus reminded of a tribunal prepared for the sentences delivered by it.