It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife.

“Of course, a man of the noble courage of our apostle (to say nothing of the Holy Ghost) was afraid, when writing to the children whom he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the world; for against Him he could not possibly seem to have a word to say, except only in a straightforward manner! I quite admit, that, according to the Creator's law, the man was an offender" who had his father's wife." He followed, no doubt, the principles of natural and public law.”

“When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, "For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you." But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, "Why did such an one commit fornication?" but, "It is reported that there is fornication among you;" that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. "For no one," saith he, "will state it thus, 'such an one hath committed fornication,' but, 'in the Church of Corinthians that sin hath been committed.'" And he said not, "Fornication is perpetrated," but, "Is reported,-such as is not even named among the Gentiles." For so continually he makes the Gentiles a topic of reproach to the believers. Thus writing to the Thessalonians, he said, "Let every one possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification, not in the passion of lust, even as the rest of the Gentiles." And to the Colossians and Ephesians, "That you should no longer walk, as the other Gentiles walk." Now if their committing the same sins was unpardonable, when they even outdid the Gentiles, what place can we find for them? tell me: "inasmuch as among the Gentiles," so he speaks, "not only they dare no such thing, but they do not even give it a name. Do you see to what point he aggravated his charge? For when they are convicted of inventing such modes of uncleanness as the unbelievers, so far from venturing on them, do not even know of, the sin must be exceeding great, beyond all words. And the clause, "among you," is spoken also emphatically; that is, "Among you, the faithful, who have been favored with so high mysteries, the partakers of secrets, the guests invited to heaven." Dost thou mark with what indignant feeling his words overflow? with what anger against all? For had it not been for the great wrath of which he was full, had he not been setting himself against them all, he would have spoken thus: "Having heard that such and such a person hath committed fornication, I charge you to punish him." But as it is he doth not so; he rather challenges all at once. And indeed, if they had written first, this is what he probably would have said. Since however so far from writing, they had even thrown the fault into the shade, on this account he orders his discourse more vehemently. Wherefore said he not, "That he should abuse his father's wife?" The extreme foulness of the deed caused him to shrink. He hurries by it accordingly, with a sort of scrupulousness as though it had been explicitly mentioned before. And hereby again he aggravates the charge, implying that such things are ventured on among them as even to speak plainly of was intolerable for Paul. Wherefore also, as he goes on, he uses the same mode of speech, saying, "Him who hath so done this thing:" and is again ashamed and blushes to speak out; which also we are wont to do in regard of matters extremely disgraceful. And he said not, "his step-mother," but, "his father's wife;" so as to strike much more severely. For when the mere terms are sufficient to convey the charge, he proceeds with them simply, adding nothing.”

“After the Apostle has pursued those things which pertain to the sacrament of Baptism, here he begins to pursue those things which pertain to marriage. And first he argues against the sin contrary to marriage, namely fornication; second he treats of marriage itself, chapter 7, where it says "now concerning the things you wrote," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the fault; second he rebukes it, where it says "your glorying is not good," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the fault of a certain fornicator; second, the fault of the others, who were tolerating the sin of the fornicator, where it says "and you are puffed up," etc. Concerning the first, first he sets down three things which pertain to the gravity of the fault. First indeed he shows the sin to be notorious, saying: not without cause did I ask, whether you wish that I come to you with a rod. For there is in you something worthy of the rod of discipline, because fornication is heard of among you altogether, in a public manner; against which it is said Eph. 5:3: "but fornication let it not even be named among you"; Isa. 3:9: "they have proclaimed their sin as Sodom, and have not hidden it." Second, he aggravates the sin by comparison, when he says: and such fornication as is not held lawful or found even among the gentiles. For among the gentiles, simple fornication was not accounted a sin. Whence the apostles, Acts 15:20, to exclude this error, imposed upon the gentiles converted to the faith that they should abstain from fornication. There was, however, a certain species of fornication which was held unlawful even among the gentiles. And therefore he says: so that someone has his father's wife, as it is said Gen. 49:4: "poured out you are like water, may you not increase, for you went up to your father's bed, and defiled his couch." This, however, was horrible even among the gentiles, as being contrary to natural reason. For by the natural reverence of a son toward his parents, in every state and law, the father and the mother are excluded from marriage. So that thus also can be understood what is had in Gen. 2:24: "for this reason a man shall leave father and mother," namely in the contracting of marriage, "and shall cleave to his wife." As indeed it is added there: "and the man and the woman shall be two in one flesh." And therefore the father's wife is excluded from marriage, like the person of the father or of the mother, according to that word Lev. 18:8: "the nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover, for it is the nakedness of your father." Then, when he says "you are puffed up," he sets down the fault of those who were tolerating this sin. And first he reproves their toleration; second he supplies what they were neglecting, where it says "I indeed," etc. Concerning the first he notes in them three vices. First, pride, when he says "and you are puffed up," namely with the wind of pride, reckoning yourselves innocent by comparison with the sinner, just as, Luke 18:11, the Pharisee said: "I am not as the rest of men, even as also this publican." Wis. 4:19: "I will burst them, puffed up, without a voice." Second, he touches upon their injustice, when he says "and you have not rather mourned," namely by suffering with the case of the sinner, just as it is said Jer. 9:1: "who will give water to my head, and to my eyes a fountain of tears, that I may weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people?" For true justice, as Gregory says, has compassion, not disdain. Third, he touches upon their negligence of judgment: "that he who did this deed be taken away from the midst of you." For such compassion of a just man toward a sinner wounds and delivers, according to that word Prov. 23:14: "you strike him with the rod, and you shall deliver his soul from hell." By this also others are corrected, according to that word Prov. 19:25: "the pestilent man being scourged, the fool will become wiser." Whence Eccles. 8:11: "because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the sons of men commit evils without any fear." But the sinner ought, for the correction of others, sometimes to be separated, where there is fear of contagion, according to that word Prov. 22:10: "cast out the scoffer, and strife shall go out with him, and quarrels and reproaches shall cease." Then, when he says "I indeed, absent in body," etc., he supplies their negligence, pronouncing sentence against the sinner. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets down the authority of the one judging; second the manner of judging, where it says "you being gathered together," etc.; third the sentence of the judge, where it says "to deliver such a one," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the authority of the minister, namely of himself. Now it seemed contrary to judicial order that he should condemn one who was absent, according to that word Acts 25:16: "it is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man, before he who is accused has his accusers present"; but the apostle excuses this, saying "I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit," that is, in affection and solicitude of mind, according to that word Col. 2:5: "and though I am absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing and seeing your order." Or "present in spirit," because through the spirit he knew the things which were being done among them, as if he were present, just as also Elisha said, 4 Kings 5:26: "was not my heart present, when the man returned from his course?" And because I am present in spirit, I have already judged, that is, I have ordained the sentence of condemnation against him who has so acted. Second, he sets down the authority of the principal Lord, saying "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," that is, in his place and by his authority, or with the power and invocation of his name, according to that word Col. 3:17: "whatever you do, in word or in work, do all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Then, when he says "you being gathered together into one," he shows the manner of judging, where he touches upon three things: first, the congregation of the faithful, when he says "you being gathered together." For those things which are grave are to be punished by the concordant deliberation of many. Whence also in antiquity judges sat in the gates, where the people gathered, according to that word Deut. 16:18: "you shall appoint judges in all your gates." Whence it is said in Ps. 110:1: "in the council of the just, and in the congregation, great are the works of the Lord." And Matt. 18:20: "where there are two or three gathered in my name, there am I in the midst." Second, he applies his own assent, when he says "and my spirit," that is, my will and authority, according to what he had said: "but present in spirit." Third, he applies the authority of the principal Lord, namely Christ, saying "with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," from which the judgment of the Church has the strength of firmness, according to that word Matt. 18:18: "whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven." Then, when he says "to deliver such a one," etc., he sets down the sentence of condemnation, concerning which he sets down three things. First, the penalty, when he says "to deliver such a one to Satan" — supply: I have judged. This can be understood in two ways. First, that, as it is said Matt. 10:8, the Lord gave the apostles power over unclean spirits, that they might cast them out, and by that same power they could command unclean spirits to afflict bodily those whom they judged worthy of this penalty. The apostle therefore commanded the Corinthians, by his authority, to deliver the aforesaid fornicator to Satan to be bodily afflicted. Whence he sets down, second, the effect of this sentence, when he says "unto the destruction of the flesh," that is, unto the vexation of the flesh and the affliction in which he sinned, according to that word Wis. 11:17: "by what things a man sins, by these also he is tormented." Third, he sets down the fruit, when he says "that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ," that is, that he may attain salvation in the day of death, or in the day of judgment, as was expounded above in the third chapter, and thus what is added there is fulfilled: "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire," namely of temporal penalty. For the apostle did not deliver the sinner to Satan that he might be perpetually subject to his power, but that by the affliction of the flesh he might be converted to penance, according to that word Isa. 28:19: "vexation alone shall give understanding to the hearing." This, moreover, is the sentence of the apostle which the Lord observed, Job 2:6, where he said to Satan: "behold, he is in your hand," namely his flesh, "but yet save his soul," namely unharmed. In another way it can be understood what is said, "to deliver such a one to Satan," namely through the sentence of excommunication, by which someone is separated from the communion of the faithful, and from participation in the sacraments, and is deprived of the suffrages of the Church, by which man is fortified against the assault of Satan; on account of which it is said of the Church, Song 4:9: "terrible as an army set in array," namely to the demons. But what is added, "unto the destruction of the flesh," is understood in this way: that, separated from the Church, and exposed to the temptations of Satan, he may more freely fall into sin, according to that word Apoc., last chapter: "he who is filthy, let him be filthy still." He calls mortal sins "the destruction of the flesh," because, as it is said Gal., last chapter: "he who sows in the flesh, of the flesh shall also reap corruption." He adds, moreover, "that the spirit may be saved," that is, that, recognizing the foulness of his sins, he may be confounded and repent, and thus be healed, according to that word Jer. 31:19: "I am confounded and ashamed, because I have borne the reproach of my youth." It can also be understood that its spirit, namely the Church's, that is, the Holy Spirit of the Church, may be preserved for the faithful unto the day of judgment, lest, namely, they lose him through contagion with the sinner, because, as it is said Wis. 1:5: "the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful," etc.”

“Here the apostle states the case; and, I. Lets them know what was the common or general report concerning them, that one of their community was guilty of fornication, Co1 5:1. It was told in all places, to their dishonour, and the reproach of Christians. And it was the more reproachful because it could not be denied. Note, The heinous sins of professed Christians are quickly noted and noised abroad. We should walk circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice. This was not a common instance of fornication, but such as was not so much as named among the Gentiles, that a man should have his father's wife - either marry her while his father was alive, or keep her as his concubine, either when he was dead or while he was alive. In either of these cases, his criminal conversation with her might be called fornication; but had his father been dead, and he, after his decease, married to her, it had been incest still, but neither fornication nor adultery in the strictest sense. But to marry her, or keep her as a concubine, while his father was alive, though he had repudiated her, or she had deserted him, whether she were his own mother or not, was incestuous fornication: Scelus incredibile (as Cicero calls it), et prater unum in omni vit inauditum (Orat. pro Cluent.), when a woman had caused her daughter to be put away, and was married to her husband. Incredible wickedness! says the orator; such I never heard of in all my life besides. Not that there were no such instances of incestuous marriages among the heathens; but, whenever they happened, they gave a shock to every man of virtue and probity among them. They could not think of them without horror, nor mention them without dislike and detestation. Yet such a horrible wickedness was committed by one in the church of Corinth, and, as is probable, a leader of one of the factions among them, a principal man. Note, The best churches are, in this state of imperfection, liable to very great corruptions. Is it any wonder when so horrible a practice was tolerated in an apostolical church, a church planted by the great apostle of the Gentiles? II. He greatly blames them for their own conduct hereupon: They were puffed up (Co1 5:2), they gloried, 1. Perhaps on account of this very scandalous person. He might be a man of great eloquence, of deep science, and for this reason very greatly esteemed, and followed, and cried up, by many among them. They were proud that they had such a leader. Instead of mourning for his fall, and their own reproach upon his account, and renouncing him and removing him from the society, they continued to applaud him and pride themselves in him. Note, Pride or self-esteem often lies at the bottom of our immoderate esteem of others, and this makes us as blind to their faults as to our own. It is true humility that will bring a man to a sight and acknowledgement of his errors. The proud man either wholly overlooks or artfully disguises his faults, or endeavours to transform his blemishes into beauties. Those of the Corinthians that were admirers of the incestuous person's gifts could overlook or extenuate his horrid practices. Or else, 2. It may intimate to us that some of the opposite party were puffed up. They were proud of their own standing, and trampled upon him that fell. Note, It is a very wicked thing to glory over the miscarriages and sins of others. We should lay them to heart, and mourn for them, not be puffed up with them. Probably this was one effect of the divisions among them. The opposite party made their advantage of this scandalous lapse, and were glad of the opportunity. Note, It is a sad consequence of divisions among Christians that it makes them apt to rejoice in iniquity. The sins of others should be our sorrow. Nay, churches should mourn for the scandalous behaviour of particular members, and, if they be incorrigible, should remove them. He that had done this wicked deed should have been taken away from among them. III. We have the apostle's direction to them how they should now proceed with this scandalous sinner. He would have him excommunicated and delivered to Satan (Co1 5:3-5); as absent in body, yet present in spirit, he had judged already as if he had been present; that is, he had, by revelation and the miraculous gift of discerning vouchsafed him by the Spirit, as perfect a knowledge of the case, and had hereupon come to the following determination, not without special authority from the Holy Spirit. He says this to let them know that, though he was at a distance, he did not pass an unrighteous sentence, nor judge without having as full cognizance of the case as if he had been on the spot. Note, Those who would appear righteous judges to the world will take care to inform them that they do not pass sentence without full proof and evidence. The apostle adds, him who hath so done this deed. The fact was not only heinously evil in itself, and horrible to the heathens, but there were some particular circumstances that greatly aggravated the offence. He had so committed the evil as to heighten the guilt by the manner of doing it. Perhaps he was a minister, a teacher, or a principal man among them. By this means the church and their profession were more reproached. Note, In dealing with scandalous sinners, not only are they to be charged with the fact, but the aggravating circumstances of it. Paul had judged that he should be delivered to Satan (Co1 5:5), and this was to be done in the name of Christ, with the power of Christ, and in a full assembly, where the apostle would be also present in spirit, or by his spiritual gift of discerning at a distance. Some think that this is to be understood of a mere ordinary excommunication, and that delivering him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh is only meant of disowning him, and casting him out of the church, that by this means he might be brought to repentance, and his flesh might be mortified. Christ and Satan divide the world: and those that live in sin, when they profess relation to Christ, belong to another master, and by excommunication should be delivered up to him; and this in the name of Christ. Note, Church-censures are Christ's ordinances, and should be dispensed in his name. It was to be done also when they were gathered together, in full assembly. The more public the more solemn, and the more solemn the more likely to have a good effect on the offender. Note, Church-censures on notorious and incorrigible sinners should be passed with great solemnity. Those who sin in this manner are to be rebuked before all, that all may fear, Ti1 5:20. Others think the apostle is not to be understood of mere excommunication, but of a miraculous power or authority they had of delivering a scandalous sinner into the power of Satan, to have bodily diseases inflicted, and to be tormented by him with bodily pains, which is the meaning of the destruction of the flesh. In this sense the destruction of the flesh has been a happy occasion of the salvation of the spirit. It is probable that this was a mixed case. It was an extraordinary instance: and the church was to proceed against him by just censure; the apostle, when they did so, put forth an act of extraordinary power, and gave him up to Satan, nor for his destruction, but for his deliverance, at least for the destruction of the flesh, that the soul might be saved. Note, The great end of church-censures is the good of those who fall under them, their spiritual and eternal good. It is that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, Co1 5:5. Yet it is not merely a regard to their benefit that is to be had in proceeding against them. For, IV. He hints the danger of contagion from this example: Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The bad example of a man in rank and reputation is very mischievous, spreads the contagion far and wide. It did so, probably, in this very church and case: see Co2 12:21. They could not be ignorant of this. The experience of the whole world was for it; one scabbed sheep infects a whole flock. A little heaven will quickly spread the ferment through a great lump. Note, Concern for their purity and preservation should engage Christian churches to remove gross and scandalous sinners.”

“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you,.... The apostle having reproved the Corinthians for their schisms and divisions about their ministers, proceeds to charge them with immoralities committed among them, and which were connived at, and took no notice of by them; and particularly a very notorious one, which he here mentions with its aggravated circumstances. It was done among them; not only by one of their citizens, nor merely by one of their hearers, but by one of their members, and so was cognizable by them as a church; for though they had nothing to do with them that were without, yet they were concerned with them that were within: this was a public offence; it was known by everyone, and it was in everybody's mouth; it was heard in all companies; it was "commonly", "universally" talked of, and reported; it was generally known at Corinth, and in all Achaia, so that the church could not plead ignorance, nor could they be excused from blame in not as publicly declaring their abhorrence of the fact, as it was committed, which was fornication: fornication, "generally" taken, might be committed among them in all the branches of it, as that may include simple fornication, adultery, incest, and all acts of uncleanness; wherefore the apostle proceeds to describe that particular instance of fornication, that one of their members was guilty of: and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife; not but that such unnatural copulations were practised, as among the Indians, Moors, Bactrians, Ethiopians, Medes, and Persians, as reported by sundry writers (y); and among the Arabians, before prohibited by Mahomet (z); but then such marriages and mixtures were not allowed of among the more civil and cultivated nations, as the Grecians and Romans, and never mentioned but with detestation and abhorrence: and if this man was a Jew, it was an aggravation of his sin, that he should be guilty of a crime decried by the Gentiles, as well as it was a violation of a known law of God given to the Jews, Lev 18:7 and, according to the Jewish writers (a), such a man was doubly guilty: their canon is, "ba tva le abh he that lies with his father's wife is guilty, on account of her being his father's wife, and on account of her being another man's wife, whether in his father's life time, or after his death, and whether espoused or married;'' and such an one was to be stoned. Of this kind was this man's crime; he had his father's wife, not his own mother, but his stepmother; for there is a distinction between a mother and a father's wife, as in the above canon. "These are to be stoned, he that lies with his mother, or with his father's wife.'' Whether this man had married his father's wife, or kept her as his concubine, continuing in an incestuous cohabitation with her, is not certain, and whether his father was dead or living; which latter seems to be the case from Co2 7:12 his iniquity was abominable and intolerable, and by no means to be winked at in church of Christ. (y) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 1. c. 24. Curtius, l. 8. c. 2. Philo, de special. leg. p. 77. 8. Tertul. Apolog. c. 9. Min. Foelix, p. 34. Clement. Alex. Paedagog. p. 109. Origen. contr. Cels. l. 6. p. 331. Hieron. adv. Jovin. l. 2. fol. 26. (z) Koran, c. 4. Vid. Pocock. spec, Arab. Hist p. 337, 338. (a) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 4.”

“There is fornication among you - The word πορνεια, which we translate fornication in this place, must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity; for, that the Corinthians were notoriously guilty of every species of irregularity and debauch, we have already seen; and it is not likely that in speaking on this subject, in reference to a people so very notorious, he would refer to only one species of impurity, and that not the most flagitious. That one should have his father's wife - Commentators and critics have found great difficulties in this statement. One part of the case is sufficiently clear, that a man who professed Christianity had illegal connections with his father's wife; but the principal question is, was his father alive or dead? Most think that the father was alive, and imagine that to this the apostle refers, Co2 7:12, where, speaking of the person who did the wrong, he introduces also him who had suffered the wrong; which must mean the father and the father then alive. After all that has been said on this subject, I think it most natural to conclude that the person in question had married the wife of his deceased father, not his own mother, but stepmother, then a widow. This was a crime which the text says was not so much as named among the Gentiles; the apostle must only mean that it was not accredited by them, for it certainly did often occur: but by their best writers who notice it, it was branded as superlatively infamous. Cicero styles it, scelus incredibile et inauditum, an incredible and unheard of wickedness; but it was heard of and practised; and there are several stories of this kind in heathen authors, but they reprobate not commend it. The word ονομαζεται, named, is wanting in almost every MS. and version of importance, and certainly makes no part of the text. The words should be read, and such fornication as is not amongst the Gentiles, i.e., not allowed. Some think that this woman might have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion from heathenism; and the rabbins taught that proselytism annulled all former relationship, and that a woman was at liberty in such a case to depart from an unbelieving husband, and to marry even with a believing son, i.e., of her husband by some former wife.”

“As the like is not among the heathens. This seems to have been the crime of incest, that he took the wife of his father yet living. See 2 Corinthians vii. 12. (Witham) — St. Chrysostom, Theod.[Theodoret?], &c., think, that this incestuous person was one of the chiefs of the schism which then reigned in Corinth. This man, say they, was a great orator, with whose eloquence the Corinthians were enchanted, and therefore dissembled a knowledge of his crime, public as it was. The apostle having proved to them the vanity of all human learning, in the preceding chapter, now attacks the incestuous man, and exposes to their view the enormity of his crime. (Calmet)”