*Editor’s Note: The following blog post is the first installment of a three-part series authored by Pastor Ben Habegger. Click here to read more installments: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Introduction

1 Corinthians 5:9–13

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. ¹² For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? ¹³ God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”[1]

This text comes within a context in which Paul the apostle commands immediate excommunication. The church at Corinth had failed to remove a man from their congregation, a professing Christian entrenched in sexual union with his father’s wife. This was a public scandal, even in the pagan setting of Roman Corinth. Beginning in verse 9, Paul corrects a frivolous objection to the social exclusion which excommunication would demand. In so doing, the apostle clarifies the extraordinary level of social withdrawal which must accompany excommunication. This radical withdrawal from an excommunicated person would be not only wrong but impossible to practice toward unbelievers in general. Paul sharply distinguishes between, on one hand, the pagans and unbelievers in general and, on the other hand, those who contradict their Christian profession by their stubbornly impenitent and demonstrable sin. Thus, contrary to the sensibilities of many both then and now, a special category of social ostracism is reserved for excommunicated people.

The detailed understanding and application of Paul’s commands “not to associate” with the excommunicated person, “not even to eat with such a one”, have a long history in the Christian church. This demands a careful exploration of and interaction with this history of interpretation. Within a few blog posts, I will include a variety of quotations from those since the Reformation who have wrestled through the interpretation and application of Paul’s command. I will also include my personal interaction with these quotations along the way.

Differing Interpretations of Non-Association

Notice first these brief comments on 1 Corinthians 5 made by G. Campbell Morgan, preceding pastor and mentor of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel in London:

There must be separation of the Church, and Paul is careful to point out that that does not mean that we are to have no dealings whatever with the world. We are in the world. To take up the position of having no dealings with those guilty of immoral conduct we should have to come out of the world altogether. We are to stay in the world, but we are to have no fellowship within the borders of the Church with such guilty of such sin, no social dealings, not even so much as to eat with them.[2]

In contrast to this emphasis on “social dealings,” hear the opinion of nineteenth-century Presbyterian and Princetonian Charles Hodge:

With such an one no not to eat. This does not refer to the Lord’s supper, which is never designated as a meal. The meaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any way as a Christian, even by eating with him. It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize them as his followers. So we may eat with such persons as are here described, provided we do not thereby recognize their Christian character. This is not a command to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the church, by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated. The command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea for the tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the church.[3]

Some of Hodge’s interpretation here is somewhat flawed because it is a reaction against (but also an unconscious acceptance of) Rome’s category errors in the past. There is a difference between exclusion from a social circle on the one hand and denial of food, drink, and shelter (necessities of physical life) on the other. But in the sacralist union of church and state, fusing Christian brotherhood with earthly citizenship, that distinction had been easily blurred. John Calvin is, I think, more helpful here.

When, therefore, the Church has excommunicated any one, no believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with him; otherwise the authority of the Church would be brought into contempt, if each individual were at liberty to admit to his table those who have been excluded from the table of the Lord. By partaking of food here, is meant either living together, or familiar association in meals. For if, on going into an inn, I see one who has been excommunicated sitting at table, there is nothing to hinder me from dining with him; for I have not authority to exclude him. What Paul means is, that, in so far as it is in our power, we are to shun the society of those whom the Church has cut off from her communion.

The Roman antichrist, not content with this severity, has burst forth into interdicts, prohibiting any one from helping one that has been excommunicated to food, or fuel, or drink, or any other of the supports of life. Now, that is not strictness of discipline, but tyrannical and barbarous cruelty, that is altogether at variance with Paul’s intention. For he means not that he should be counted as an enemy, but as a brother, (2 Thes. iii. 15;) for in putting this public mark of disgrace upon him, the intention is, that he may be filled with shame, and brought to repentance. And with this dreadful cruelty, if God is pleased to permit, do they rage even against the innocent. Now, granting that there are sometimes those who are not undeserving of this punishment, I affirm, on the other hand, that this kind of interdict is altogether unsuitable to an ecclesiastical court.[4]

Here Calvin sheds light on Roman Catholic abuses to which Hodge overreacted. Calvin’s illustration of dining in the same public inn as the excommunicated person is a good example of the distinction between public civility and private intimacy. I would, however, slightly differ with Calvin’s scriptural support, since he applies 2 Thessalonians 3:15 not to initial congregational censure (something akin to membership suspension) but to full excommunication (which is directly addressed in Matthew 18:17b and 1 Corinthians 5).

Seventeenth-century Presbyterian Matthew Poole (along with likeminded ministers after his death) wrote a classic commentary on the whole Bible, and here is what that commentary says concerning the prohibition of eating with the excommunicated person:

Of late there have been some disputes what eating is here intended, whether at the Lord’s table, or at our common tables. Intimacy of communion is that which undoubtedly is here signified by eating; and the apostle’s meaning is, that the members of this church should forbear any unnecessary fellowship and communion with any persons that went under the name of Christians, and yet indulged themselves in any notorious and scandalous courses of life; of which he reckoneth up several sorts….

But yet by this interpretation the argument is not lost against eating with such at the table of the Lord, which is no more necessary communion with them, than civil eating is; for neither hath God spread that table for any such, neither ought any church to endure any such persons in its communion: nor are any Christians bound for ever to abide in the communion of that church, which shall willfully neglect the purging out of such old leaven. Admitting this precept prohibitive of a civil intimacy with scandalous persons, though they be called brethren, it holds a fortiori, as a stronger argument against religious communion with such, in ordinances to which, apparently, they have no proximate right.[5]

Poole’s Commentary here is excellent. It affirms that Paul commanded exclusion from civil intimacy (including sharing a common meal together), not merely exclusion from religious affirmation (such as communion around the Lord’s Table). We find a similar understanding in the early nineteenth-century British Wesleyan Methodist, Adam Clarke:

Not even to eat with such—have no communion with such a one, in things either sacred or civil. You may transact your worldly concerns with a person that knows not God, and makes no profession of Christianity, whatever his moral character may be; but you must not even thus far acknowledge a man professing Christianity, who is scandalous in his conduct. Let him have this extra mark of your abhorrence of all sin; and let the world see that the Church of God does not tolerate iniquity.[6]

Clarke’s language might helpfully be softened by Calvin’s earlier words. We may still buy and sell, or eat in the same McDonald’s dining room, with an excommunicated person. But we may not have any close association with them, even in mundane matters. Still, Clarke is correct in principle that the church is to show a special care in avoiding the excommunicated person, an avoidance we should not practice toward other unbelievers. That simply matches Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 5.

Speaking of a careful avoidance of excommunicated people, we might do well to note the ancient church’s attitude toward the excommunicated, particularly toward excommunicated heretical teachers. Hear, for instance, Irenaeus’s anecdotes about his mentor Polycarp and about Polycarp’s mentor, the Apostle John.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true…. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”[7]

Though anecdotes such as these from the Apostolic Fathers might possibly have been exaggerated, they certainly reflect the apostolic abhorrence of Gnostic heretics who had been excluded from the true church. Such an attitude may be easily contrasted with the modern church’s abhorrence of any perceived harshness in church discipline.

As we further consider the idea of social exclusion in 1 Corinthians 5, we turn to the twentieth-century Dutch Reformed commentator Simon J. Kistemaker.

“With such a person do not even eat!” In an Eastern society, established norms of hospitality might not be broken. To not offer food to a relative, an acquaintance, a friend, or a guest could be interpreted as a declaration of war. The parable of the friend at midnight indicates that a host would be willing to incur his neighbor’s displeasure in an effort to obtain food for his guest (Luke 11:5–8). In a reversal of the established norms, Jesus often ate with tax collectors and sinners and was called their friend (Matt. 11:19; Luke 15:2)—and scandalized the religious leaders. Then, what is the point of Paul’s injunction?

The matter concerns church discipline. Jesus instructed his followers that his prescribed procedure for excommunication might result in a complete separation of the Christian community and the offending sinner (Matt. 18:17). The sinner is a blot on the integrity of the church (compare II Peter 2:13; Jude 12). Such a sinner must be excluded from Christian fellowship. Then he may learn to see the error of his way, repent, and return to the faith (compare II Thess. 3:14–15). By contrast, Christians could follow accepted social customs and eat with non-Christians.[8]

Notice that last sentence. Those excommunicated are indeed to be distinguished from unbelievers in general. Hear then commentator Anthony C. Thiselton.

The social bonding associated with eating and drinking together helps us to understand μηδὲ συνεσθίειν, not even to eat with them, i.e., you should not even share your table (with such a person). Although there is a well-known debate about whether Paul refers here to eating together at the Lord’s Table or to eating together in houses in everyday social relationships, the use of μηδὲ, not even, would not make sense if Paul were understood to say: they do not belong to the congregation, not even to the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper. The logical step proceeds in the wrong direction, i.e., would be understandable only if it were to mean exclusions from the Lord’s Supper and not even more “open” occasions. However, not even can be understood in a more constructive, generous sense. If not even inviting such a person (τῷ τοιούτῳ) home for the social bonding of the family table expressed the negative limits, there could be no question of never speaking to such people in the street, or of excluding the normal courtesies due to acquaintances, but not to friends, associates, or close colleagues. Paul’s μηδὲ seems to exclude withdrawal from the normal courtesies of life, but does indeed specify association, support, and compromise of community-identity.[9]

Again, the Christian must know and practice the difference between civil courtesies and closer associations.

To conclude this opening blog post, we turn to the sage commentary of early eighteenth-century British Presbyterian Matthew Henry.

Here the apostle advises them to shun the company of scandalous professors.

I. The advice itself: I wrote to you in a letter not to company with fornicators,v. 9. Some think this was an epistle written to them before, which is lost. Some think it is to be understood of this very epistle, but thought it needful now to be more particular. And therefore he tells them that if any man called a brother, and being a member of a Christian church, were a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, that they should not keep company with him, nor so much as eat with such a one. They were to avoid all familiarity with him; but, that they might shame him, and bring him to repentance, must disclaim and shun him. They may call themselves brethren in Christ, but they are not Christian brethren. They are only fit companions for their brethren in iniquity.

II. How he limits this advice. He does not forbid their eating nor conversing with the fornicators of this world,&c. They know no better. They profess no better. “You must needs go out of the world if you will have no conversation with such men. It is impossible, as long as you are in the world, but you must fall into their company. This cannot be wholly avoided.”

III. The reason of this limitation is here assigned. Christians must have gone out of the world to avoid the company of loose heathens. But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked [Christians][10]. Besides, heathens were such as Christians had nothing to do to judge and censure, and avoid upon a censure passed; for they are without (v. 12), and must be left to God’s judgment, v. 13. But, as to members of the church, they are within, are professedly bound by the laws and rules of Christianity, and not only liable to the judgment of God, but to the censures of the fellow-members of the same body, when they transgress those rules. [Every Christian is bound to judge them unfit for communion and familiar converse.][11] They are to be punished, by having this mark of disgrace put upon them, that they may be shamed, and, if possible, reclaimed thereby[: and the more because the sins of such much more dishonour God than the sins of the openly wicked and profane can do. The church therefore is obliged to clear herself from all confederacy with them, or connivance at them, and to bear testimony against their wicked practices.][12] Though the church has nothing to do with those without, it must endeavour to keep clear of the guilt and reproach of those within.

IV. How he applies the argument to the case before him: “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person,v. 13. Cast him out of your fellowship[, and avoid his conversation][13].”[14]

Matthew Henry’s sound interpretation stands in stark contrast to the common practice of even many “traditional” churches in our day.

[1] My own scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version.

[2] G. Campbell Morgan, The Corinthian Letters of Paul: An Exposition of I and II Corinthians (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1946), 83–84.

[3] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1&2 Corinthians, Geneva Series of Commentaries (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 91.

[4] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, translated by John Pringle, Volume One (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 195.

[5] A Commentary on the Whole Bible by Matthew Poole, Volume III: Matthew–Revelation (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1975), 554.

[6] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, One-Volume Edition, Abridged from the Original Six-Volume Work by Ralph Earle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 1097.

[7] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4, https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html.

[8] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 170–171.

[9] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 415.

[10] See the original, unabridged wording; https://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6/mhc6.iCor.vi.html.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, edited by Leslie F. Church, New One-Volume Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961), 1810–1811.

Ben Habegger

Ben Habegger first served in full-time pastoral ministry near Detroit, Michigan from 2013-2017 and has now been vocational pastor at Hope Reformed Baptist Church of Aloha, Oregon (formerly Glencullen Baptist Church of Portland, Oregon) since January of 2020. He has a Master of Divinity degree from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and a Master of Arts in Reformed Baptist Studies from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben and his wife Theresa have four children.