1 Corinthians 5:13Meaning & 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.

But among the pagans there is no such intervening corrective judgment. God’s judgment awaits them directly. Chrysostom says: “Lest someone infer from his words, ‘What have I to do with judging those outside?’ that the pagans will remain unpunished, he points to another judgment, the dread one. He says this to frighten those outside and at the same time to console his own. He also shows that this temporal punishment delivers from the eternal and endless one. 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).” “And put away the evil one from among yourselves.” “The evil one” means not only the incestuous man, but every evil man, every manifest sinner. This saying is taken from Deuteronomy (Deut 17:7). By it the Apostle confirms his order to expel manifest sinners from the society of Christians. Old Israel prefigured the new, and the material laws of that time prefigured the spiritual laws of the Church of Christ. There, great sinners were stoned, and in this way the Israelites removed the evil one from among themselves. In the Church of Christ, however, the evil one is removed by excommunication from communion, both in the mysteries and in outward dealings. This is done not only to cleanse the Church herself from evil, but also to correct the sinner himself. By citing this saying, the Apostle both justifies his order, showing that one must act precisely so, and also sets forth the difference between the new Israel and the old. Chrysostom says on this passage: “The Apostle borrowed this saying from the Old Testament. On the one hand, he teaches that in such a case, by removing the evil one, they themselves will receive the greatest benefit, being freed as from a dangerous infection. On the other hand, he shows that this is not an innovation, but that the ancient lawgiver already commanded such persons to be cut off. There, however, it was stricter; here it is more condescending. Here one may rightly ask why there the lawgiver allowed sinners to be executed and stoned, while here he does not, but leads him to repentance. Why was it ordained there in one way, and here in another? For two reasons. First, because those called under the New Testament are called to a greater struggle, and therefore need greater condescension. Second, and more justly, because a lightening of punishment more readily disposes them to repentance and correction, while among those of the Old Testament it would have led to greater corruption.”