1 Corinthians 5:12Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Why? Because there he wished to encourage, but here not so. There the sin is not such as here. There he rebukes a lesser sin, idleness, but here fornication and other gravest sins.

For the same reason, he does not forbid one who associates with Gentiles to eat with them. We also act this way: we have complete care for children and brothers, but do not greatly concern ourselves with strangers.

But what then? Did Paul not care for those outside? He did care. But he taught them the commandments only when they accepted the preaching and submitted to the teaching of Christ.

Before they were converted, it would have been needless to speak of Christ's commandments to those who did not even know Christ. “Do you not judge those who are inside? But God judges those who are outside” (1 Cor 5:12-13).

Lest someone infer from his words, “what have I to do with judging those also who are outside?” that the Gentiles will remain unpunished, he points them to another judgment, a fearful one.

He says this in order to frighten those outside and at the same time to comfort his own. He also shows that this temporary punishment delivers from eternal and endless punishment.

As he said elsewhere: “when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor 11:32). And: “put away the evil from among yourselves” (Deut 17:7).

He borrowed the saying from the Old Testament in order, on the one hand, to suggest that they themselves would receive the greatest benefit, being freed as from a dangerous infection.

On the other hand, he wished to show that this was not an innovation. The ancient lawgiver had already commanded that such people be excommunicated.

Yet there it was stricter, and here more lenient. At this point one may rightly ask why the lawgiver there permitted the sinner to be executed and stoned, but here he does not.

Instead, he leads him to repentance. Why was it established one way there and another way here? For two reasons.

First, because those of the New Testament are called to a greater struggle, and therefore need greater condescension. Second, and more rightly, because a mitigation of punishment more readily disposes them to repentance and correction.

For those of the Old Testament, however, this would have led to greater corruption. If, even seeing the punishment of those before them, they remained in the same sins, then they would have hardened still more in such a state if some of them had not been punished.

For this reason, there the adulterer and murderer were immediately put to death. Here, if they cleanse themselves by repentance, they escape punishment.

Yet one can also find punishments in the New Testament stricter than in the Old. In the Old one can also find punishments lighter than in the New.

From this it is clear that the two Testaments are kindred and belong to one and the same lawgiver. In both, punishments sometimes follow the crime immediately, and sometimes after a long time.

Often this does not happen at all, but God is satisfied with repentance alone. Thus in the Old Testament David, who committed adultery and murder, was saved by repentance.

In the New, Ananias, who kept back a little from the price of the property, perished together with his wife. If in the Old there are more examples of severity, and in the New the opposite, the difference in this divine economy arises from the difference in persons.

Thus he said elsewhere: when we are judged now, we are chastened, that we may not be condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:32).” According to Bishop Theophan’s explanation, “through this whole section runs the thought that Christians themselves must keep their society in purity and holiness. If someone appears who does not stand on the same level with the others in this respect, they must expel him from the society by judicial order, and specifically by their own internal order.” He sees the same thought in the Apostle’s concluding saying: “Put away the evil one from among yourselves,” taken from Deut 17:7. “The evil one” means not only the incestuous man, but every evil man, every manifest sinner.

In his own person he represents all Christians who judge, or the whole Church, whose authority extends only over her own children. “Do you not judge those who are inside?” He says, “Do you judge?” Yet he entrusts this authority to them. Therefore here also the speech may be rendered thus: do not we, together with you, judge those who are inside? Photius, in Oecumenius, says: “We correct the brethren when we examine their matters and pronounce judgment upon them for the sake of correction. But from those others, the pagans, we have already separated ourselves.” These words indicate why the Apostle earlier gave the rule not to mingle with manifest sinners only from among Christians, and not from among pagans. For he says: these are outside, and those are inside. We, together with you, can judge only those inside, not those outside. But if judgment is spoken of here, then one must conclude that there also the refusal to mingle with sinners from among Christians was to come into effect through ecclesiastical judgment. Through this whole brief section runs one thought. Christians themselves must keep their society in purity and holiness. If anyone appears who does not stand on the same level with the others in this respect, they must expel such a one from the society by judicial order, and specifically by their own internal order.