8. Demos., or. 59.122 (Loeb, 6:445, 447 slightly modified).

The sudden shift from topic to topic without preparation, transparent internal ties, or logic is one of the reasons why some scholars see our letter as a compilation of letters to Corinth. See the introduction, .

See Hurd, 89 n. 1, to whom I am indebted for this observation, although he notes only the thematic ties, not the distinction between the “some” of the former section and the whole church of this one. For other insights into the relationship between chaps. 1–4 and 5–6, see Dahl, “Paul,” 329–33; and esp. P. S. Minear, “Christ and the Congregation: 1 Corinthians 5–6,” RevExp 80 (1983), 341–50, whose suggestions are the stimulation behind some of this presentation. On the other hand, Ciampa and Rosner have raised this observation further than seems warranted by making 4:17–20 serve to introduce all of chaps. 5–7 (“The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach,” NTS 52 [2006], 205–18, see above); cf. now their commentary as well.

In this regard see esp. the analyses by B. S. Rosner, “Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5,” TynB 42 (1991), 137–45, who (almost certainly correctly) argues that 3:16–17, the church as God’s temple indwelt by the Spirit, provides the theological framework for our understanding the present passage; and by L. Vander Broek, “Discipline and Community: Another Look at 1 Corinthians 5,” RefR 48 (1994), 5–13.

This is more clear to some than to others. E.g., W. Deming (“The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5–6,” JBL 115 [1996], 289–312) argued for the strongest possible ties, that the case of sexual misconduct (chap. 5) was being adjudicated in the public courts (6:1–11); whereas G. Sellin argued for a later combining of three separate letters (“1 Korinther 5–6 und der ‘Vorbrief’ nach Korinth. Indizien fur eine Mehrschichtigkeit von Kommunikationsakten im ersten Korintherbrief,” NTS 37 [1991], 535–58).

Cf. Witherington, 151. Their total inability to account for 6:1–11, not to mention their handling of 4:16–21 in their scheme, seems to play havoc with the attempt by Ciampa and Rosner to make all of 4:18–7:40 have to do with “purity in the church” (“The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach,” NTS 52 [2006], 205–18). On the other hand, see P. Richardson, who argues that the two items in chap. 6 reflect the same problem, i.e., that the sexual immorality of 6:12–20 is the matter that has been taken to public litigation in 6:1–11 (“Judgment in Sexual Matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11,” NovT 25 [1983], 37–58). Cf. the discussion on 6:1. Less persuasive is K. Bailey’s analysis, which, using rhetorical criticism, sees 6:9–11 as being introductory to 6:12–20 (“Paul’s Theological Foundation for Human Sexuality: I Cor. 6:9–20 in the Light of Rhetorical Criticism,” ThRev 3 [1980], 27–41).

A common view sees chaps. 5 and 6 as dealing basically with sexual immorality, with 6:1–11 as a digression. Thus 5:1–13 has to do specifically with incest, and his final remarks on “judging” send Paul off on an aside (6:1–11); but he returns to his theme in 6:12–20 with some general teaching on the subject of sexual sin. The problem with this, of course, is that 6:12–20 is every bit as case-specific as 5:1–13 and deals with a different item altogether. But see J. H. Bernard, “The Connexion between the Fifth and Sixth Chapters of 1 Corinthians,” Exp 7:3 (1907), 433–43, who would tie together all of chaps. 5, 6, and 7 in terms of the problem of the incestuous man.

But see P. Richardson, who argues that the two items in chap. 6 reflect the same problem, i.e., that the sexual immorality of 6:12–20 is the matter that has been taken to public litigation in 6:1–11 (“Judgment in Sexual Matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11,” NovT 25 [1983], 37–58). Cf. the discussion on 6:1.

Demos., or. 59.122 (Loeb, 6:445, 447 slightly modified).

For the esp. Judaic worldview that is here in evidence in the Christian Paul, see J. F. M. Smit, “ ‘That Someone Has the Wife of His Father’: Paul’s Argumentation in 1 Cor 5,1–13,” ETL 80 (2004), 131–43.

Hurd, 277, considers this reconstruction to be something of an “illusion” on the part of commentators. He is willing to argue that no sexual aberration actually existed in the community (this one being interpreted as a “spiritual marriage”). But to do so he must not only overlook the implications of these texts, esp. 2 Cor. 12:21, but he must also interpret 6:12–20 as merely hypothetical (see the commentary on this passage). Hurd’s case is predicated on the main thesis of his book, that Paul himself introduced prohibitions against sexual immorality in his previous letter when he was communicating to them the content of the “apostolic decree.”

For a helpful overview of the sociological dimension of this kind of “in-house” discipline within the believing community, see G. Harris, “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5,” NTS 37 (1991), 1–21.

This also helps to explain why Paul does not begin his letter here, a matter which disturbed a few of Paul’s critics.

It is not clear what Conzelmann, 96 n. 24, means when he says: “Paul’s lack of concern for the general moral aspects of the case is shown by the fact that he pronounces no judgment on the woman. She seems not to have belonged to the community.” The latter sentence is precisely the point. Paul is obviously concerned with the moral aspects of the case for the Christian community; God judges those on the outside (v. 13), which of course implies a considerable moral judgment on pagans.

As is often true of these more complex moments in the letter, this passage has had its share of analyses in the scholarly literature. I note here four of the more significant of these: L. Vander Broek, “Discipline and Community: Another Look at 1 Corinthians 5,” RefR 48 (1994), 5–13; E. Bammel, “Rechtsfindung in Korinth,” ETL 73 (1997), 107–13; R. B. Hays, “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 45 (1999), 409–12; and esp. J. T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8,” NTS 39 (1993), 539–61. This latter item should put to rest a very large part of the scholarly ambivalence that has surrounded vv. 3–4 of this passage.

See esp. J. K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth, JSNTSS 75 (Sheffield, 1992), 130–41; and Vander Broek (preceding note). The value of these studies is that they open up a new world of possible options for our understanding of Paul at this point. But our essential problem remains: that we still know less than is actually available to us from Paul’s own sentences. Even so, if we are still somewhat in the dark as to the actual sociological dimension of the issue, Paul’s own required resolution of it remains quite clear, despite the ambiguity of some of the details.

There is no verb in the Greek text (thus lit. “of a kind not even among pagans”). Later MSS (the 7th-c. P⁶⁸ being the earliest) add ὀνομάζεται, which is clearly secondary, since no good reason could be given for its universal omission in the early church, had it been original.

The MajT has ἐξαρθῇ for ἀρθῇ, thus conforming the verb to the citation from the LXX in v. 13.

Did Paul write ποιήσας (P⁴⁶ P⁶⁸ B D F G Ψ Maj; favored by Zuntz, 130–31) or πράξας (P^11vid A C 33 81 104 326 1175 2464; favored by NA²⁷; cf. Metzger, 484)? There is no difference in meaning, although πράξας is more literary. Paul himself interchanges the verbs for apparently stylistic reasons in Rom. 1:32 and 2:2–3. The question is not easily resolved, depending mostly on how one views the external evidence.

The concessive force of the participle ἀπών is heightened in the later MSS by the addition of a ὡς.

The MSS are divided between (1) “the Lord Jesus” (A Ψ 2495 pc); (2) “the Lord Jesus Christ” ( a); (3) “our Lord Jesus” (B D* 1175 1739 pc b d); and (4) “our Lord Jesus Christ” (P⁴⁶ F G Maj). This is further complicated by the similar corruptions at the end of the verse (see next note). The addition of Χριστός is probably also related to the syntactic problem of finding which verb form the prepositional phrase modifies (see comm.). Contra Zuntz, 235, the Χριστός most likely is an addition, probably by a scribe who interpreted the passage the way Zuntz and the NRSV (and the present comm.) do: to heighten the solemn words of judgment (“I have pronounced judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”); an “omission,” on the other hand, could have happened only by accident. The judgment on the word ἡμῶν is more difficult, although the MS evidence seems to support its presence. It fits well with “the Lord Jesus” here, and could easily have been omitted with the addition of “Christ.” On the other hand, it could have been added on the analogy of the next phrase.

Cf. the previous note. A similar set of variants occurs: (1) “our Lord Jesus” ( A B D* sa); (2) “the Lord Jesus” (P⁴⁶ P Ψ 629 2495 pc); (3) “the Lord” (630 1739); and (4) “our Lord Jesus Christ” (F G Maj). In this case variants (1) and (2) are to be preferred to the others (Zuntz, 235, leans toward the reading of 1739, but its reading can easily be explained as an accidental omission due to homoeoteleuton). Of these two, the inclusion of ἡμῶν is preferred on exegetical grounds; cf. Metzger, 484–85. See the commentary.

The MSS variously add Ἰησοῦ ( Ψ Maj), Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (D pc), and ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (A F G P 33 104 365 1881 pc). The translated text is that of P⁴⁶ B 630 1739 pc Tert Epiph. Although this may look like more of the same (see the two previous notes), it is not so. Here the use of “the day of the Lord” in Paul is the decisive factor (cf. 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2); the very variety of the additions indicates that the shorter reading is the original; so also Metzger, 485.

This is my language. For Paul the man is simply τινα, thus “a certain man” or “someone”; but the entire argument is predicated on the fact that the offender belongs to the community of faith.

As P. Zaas nicely put it, “the incestuous brother . . . has damaged the boundary between the church and the world” (“Catalogues and Context: 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,” NTS 34 [1988], 622–29, quotation from 629).

Gk. ὅλως, ordinarily meaning “totally” or “completely”; hence “universally,” “in general,” or “in a word.”

Gk. ἀκούεται, lit. “it is being heard,” hence “it was learned” (Mark 2:1), or “it came to one’s attention” (Matt. 28:14).

KJV, “it is reported commonly”; NAB, “widely reported”; cf. Weiss, 124; Héring, 34; Conzelmann, 94: “in general there are reports.” Mare, 217, suggested that the present tense of the verb “helps convey the idea that the report is continually spreading.” But that is not likely; rather, it indicates that the sexual aberration to which he is referring is going on presently.

The prepositional phrase ἐν ὑμῖν immediately follows the verb; some (e.g., Lightfoot, 202; R-P, 95) take it therefore to modify “reported,” i.e., the report is circulating among them, and from them is being noised abroad. But here is a case where word order means little or nothing. The phrase stands in clear contrast to the next one, οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (“not even among the pagans”), as later in 12:2 Paul assumes that the Corinthian believers are themselves no longer among “the pagans.”

On this whole question see F. Hauck and S. Schulz, TDNT 6:579–95; cf. W. Barclay, Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5.19–23 (Nashville, 1962), 24–28.

See the previous note.

What is less likely is that both father and son are simultaneously sleeping with her (so also most commentaries).

Since 18:7 forbids sexual relations with one’s mother, the “father’s wife” with whom intercourse is forbidden in v. 8 refers to a woman other than one’s mother, a second (or later) wife of one’s father. For the possibility that the woman was actually his father’s concubine, see C. S. de Vos, “Stepmothers, Concubines, and the Case of Πορνεία in 1 Corinthians 5,” NTS 44 (1998), 104–14.

See esp. on 7:2 below and the evidence given there, hence modern English translations: “living with” (NRSV, NAB), “the union of a man with his father’s wife” (NEB, changed in the REB to “one of you has his father’s wife” [italics in original]); the ESV chose to be “literal” (“for a man ‘has’ his father’s wife”), which still works in contemporary American English, but unfortunately is less than clear to a younger generation of people for whom such usage is street language for what a guy “does” to a gal (he “had” her).

For Jewish law, see Lev. 18:7–8 and 20:11; cf. Amos 2:7b, “father and son use [= sleep with] the same girl.” Cf. also Jos., Ant. 3.274; Philo, spec.leg. 3.12–21; m. Sanh. 7.4; b. Sanh. 54a; T. Reub. passim.

For Greco-Roman law, see the Institutes of Gaius 1.63: “Neither can I marry her who has aforetime been my mother-in-law or step-mother, or daughter-in-law or step-daughter”; the use of “aforetime” is explained as assuming the ban against polygamy (trans. J. Muirhead [Edinburgh, 1880], 24–25). On Roman attitudes see Cicero, Cluent. 6, of the marriage of a woman with her son-in-law: “Oh! to think of the woman’s sin, unbelievable, unheard of in all experience save for this single instance!” (Loeb, 1:237).

As Hurd (278) pointed out.

Gk. πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ (“you are puffed up”), the same word as “take pride in” (4:6) and “arrogant” (4:18).

Gk. καύχημα; cf. 1:29, 31; 3:21; 4:7.

The NIV follows a long tradition in this regard (cf. NRSV, NAB, REB). Others (e.g., Barrett, 122, Conzelmann, 94) consider the whole sentence to be a question, not just the second half. Thus, “Are you in these circumstances puffed up? Did you not rather go into mourning, that he who had committed this deed might be taken away from you?” (Barrett).

D. Daube (“Pauline Contributions to a Pluralistic Culture: Re-Creation and Beyond,” in Jesus and Man’s Hope [2 vols.; ed. D. G. Miller and D. K. Hadidian; Pittsburgh, 1971], 223–27) suggests a different reason for the Corinthian attitude, related to the rabbinic doctrine that in conversion a proselyte is like a newborn child; hence all former relations are dissolved, and a man may take his father’s wife because “in Christ” this old relationship no longer exists, since “all things have become new.” As Daube points out, there is certainly a sense in which Paul himself believed this. What he would then be objecting to here is their taking it too far, so that they went beyond even pagan law. This suggestion is difficult to evaluate. On the one hand, such a view may very well have been part of the Corinthians’ new spirituality, that “in Christ” all former relationships no longer exist. This can be neither proved nor disproved; but such a stance could help to explain how such a relationship might have been started in the first place. On the other hand, Daube misses Paul by a long way in suggesting that the real issue is pagan law. For Paul the issue is sin, pure and simple, over which the community should mourn and which for the sake of the community must be removed from their midst.

This translation, which understands the ἵνα to be imperatival (see Turner, Syntax, 95; Moule, 144–45; Zerwick, BG, 415) may be correct, but it covers up a very complex grammatical decision. Barrett, 122; Conzelmann, 96, and many others take it as a consecutive, similar to ὥστε. Thus their mourning should have resulted in the man’s expulsion from the community.

This aorist does not contradict what was said about the force of ἔχειν in v. 1. The aorist here (also in v. 3) is constative, summing up the matter as a whole.

As in Matt. 5:4; cf. 1 Esdr. 8:69; Ezra 10:6; T. Reub. 1:10. It is just possible that it reflects the kind of mourning one experiences at the death of a loved one. The man’s sin and therefore the necessity of his expulsion from the community if he did not repent would have resulted in their having gone into “mourning” at the loss of a brother. See, e.g., V. C. Pfitzner, “Expulsion from the Community according to Matthew 18:15–18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1–5,” AusBR 30 (1982), 42. The γάρ that introduces the next clause suggests that mourning over sin is what is in view, since it must result in such action on their part.

The removal of sinful objects is always a concomitant of national repentance in Israel. See, e.g., 2 Kgs. 23:4–5 in the context of 22:11, 19; Zech. 13:2 in the context of 12:10–14; Ezra 10:3 in the context of 10:1.

That is why any comparison with the rite of removal in Qumran is ultimately irrelevant. See, e.g., S. E. Johnson, “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York, 1957), 139. See esp. the “penal code” and the judgments in 1QS 6:24–7:25. Theirs was a rite of discipline that had missed the “awful” character of God’s holiness and the deeply fallen character of human sinfulness, and therefore was purely ascetic. That is hardly what Paul is dealing with here. Cf. G. Forkman, The Limits of Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity (Lund, 1972), 75–78.

See on 1:27–29 above. Note that Paul does not miss this point: 1:30, “God made Christ to become ‘wisdom’ for us, that is, to become righteousness, holiness, and redemption”; 6:11, “but such were some of you; now you are washed, sanctified, justified in Christ by the Spirit”; 15:3, “Christ died for our sins.” See the commentary on these passages.

Gk. ἐγὼ μέν, not truly picked up in the original NIV’s “Even though I.” The μέν here has no coordinate δέ but contrasts the ἐγώ of this sentence with the ὑμεῖς of the preceding one (which was apparently intended to be picked up in the original NIV by an “And I” at the beginning of the next sentence). The present NIV has caught the sense of all this well with its “For my part” (cf. NAB and NEB, changed in the REB to “For I truly”).

The language is not exact, but close. Here Paul contrasts τῷ σώματι (“in the body”) with τῷ πνεύματι (“in the spirit”); in Colossians the first member is τῇ σαρκί (“in the flesh”), which in this instance means the same thing.

Cf. Barrett, 123, “Paul is using the word in a ‘quite popular sense’ (Weiss), that is, psychologically rather than theologically. . . . Paul refers to his thoughts, and his concern for the Corinthian church.” Of v. 4 he says further: “He will make his contribution, as the Corinthians reflect on what they remember of his convictions, character, and ways, and on what they know of his mind in the present matter” (124). This seems to miss by far too much the dynamic character of their gathering in the power of the Spirit.

Cf. Wiles, Intercessory, 145–46; this crucial point continues to be passed over (e.g., Collins), but not Thiselton (Garland is less sure).

Gk. ὡς παρών; cf. Findlay, 808, who is one of the few commentators to catch the significance of this insertion: “ὡς παρών means ‘as being present,’ not ‘as though present’—which rendering virtually surrenders the previous ἀπών . . . παρὼν δέ”; and Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 15 n. 21: “There is no justification for translating hōs parōn by ‘as if present.’ . . . Hence, ‘as one who is present.’ ”

Gk. ἐμοῦ, the possessive adjective serving as possessive pronoun in the emphatic position. This is seldom noted by commentators, but it must not be overlooked. Elsewhere with this idiom Paul uses the simple, unemphatic μου (14:14; 2 Cor. 2:13; Rom. 1:9).

The present NIV seems esp. to fall into this trap. By eliminating all reference to the Spirit, it makes the whole text mean either “physically” = “actually” present, or “spiritually” = but not really. Thus they translate the first clause “I am with you in spirit,” meaning “I am not really present because I am not there physically.” The next clause then makes this “not really” clearer by translating “just as if I were present,” implying “but I am not because I am only with you in spirit” (v. 4). But this misses Paul by a wide margin, and is an esp. unfortunate rendering of καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, which functions in Paul’s sentence as the compound subject, along with ὑμῶν, of the verb συναχθέντων (“when you and my S/spirit are assembled”).

Cf. E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:434–35; for a somewhat different view see Jewett, Terms, 184–97, 451–53.

For the probability that we are dealing with a prophetic judgment, as in 3:17, see Käsemann, “Sentences,” 70–71.

Gk. ἤδη κέκρικα; Conzelmann, 94, translates “I have now already resolved . . . to consign this man,” commenting that it does not mean “ ‘have passed judgment’; otherwise the infinitive remains hanging in the air.” That is not quite so, and reflects Conzelmann’s own desire to have the entire action be Paul’s, with no community involvement: “The community merely constitutes the forum; it does not share in the action” (97). The sentence is convoluted, but its general syntax is manageable. The τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον is the object of the verb κέκρικα, not of the infinitive that follows some four lines later. But the man is also the object of the action that is pursuant to Paul’s judgment; hence Paul repeats the object in the form of τὸν τοιοῦτον. The infinitive is a simple instance of indirect discourse; thus, “I have already passed judgment on the one who has perpetrated this deed, that you are to hand over such a one to Satan.” The “you” that functions as the subject of the infinitive is implied in the preceding genitive absolute συναχθέντων ὑμῶν (“when you are assembled”). Cf. O-W, 186. On this whole question see the discussion in Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 13–16, who came to a similar conclusion but handles the grammar slightly differently.

This is an esp. popular position in the nonexegetical literature, although it can at times be found elsewhere. See, e.g., C. J. Roetzel, Judgment in the Community (Leiden, 1972), 113–24, who simply assumes that juridical procedures are in view and discusses the passage accordingly.

One of the syntactic difficulties in the sentence is to determine what this prepositional phrase modifies, either the participle συναχθέντων or the infinitive παραδοῦναι. In this case, however, usage is determinative. The preposition σύν is duplicating the σύν in the compound verb συν-ἀγω and means what it ordinarily does, “together with” (cf. 1:2). Furthermore, the preposition seldom carries an instrumental sense, and never so in Paul; therefore it can hardly go with παραδοῦναι, where such a sense would be necessary. Contra I. Havener, “A Curse for Salvation—1 Corinthians 5:1–5,” in Sin, Salvation and the Spirit (ed. D. Durken; Collegeville, Minn., 1979), 336–37. The parallels adduced by A. Yarbro Collins (“The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” HTR 73 [1980], 256) from the magical papyri are not in fact parallel, despite A. Deissmann’s assertion to the contrary (LAE, 303 n. 1).

Another option sometimes suggested is that it modifies παραδοῦναι. But this is ruled out both by word order and by the lack of a need to go this way; the same point is made in option 2, namely the emphasis on the authority of Christ in carrying out the exclusion. Interestingly, Collins (211) takes a considerably relaxed attitude on this matter, allowing that it “may qualify both the Christians’ coming together and the action they are to take.”

Argued for, vis-à-vis Murphy-O’Connor (next note), by Havener, “Curse,” 335–36 (although he translates: “. . . assembled under the invocation of our Lord Jesus”), and accepted by Witherington (158).

I first heard this view presented in a paper by Frederick Danker at the annual meeting of the SBL in St. Louis, 1976. It was so translated by Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul (Philadelphia, 1975), 64; and it has been argued for in some detail by Murphy-O’Connor, “V, 3–5,” and picked up by S. D. MacArthur, “ ‘Spirit’ in Pauline Usage: 1 Corinthians 5.5,” in Studia Biblica 1978, III. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield, 1980), 249–56; and Yarbro Collins, “Function,” 253. Cf. O-W, 186, who allow it as “another interesting possibility.”

See for the argument that the phrase σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ almost certainly modifies συναχθέντων.

1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 3:6; Col. 3:17.

See Keys, 11–19.

Murphy-O’Connor (Keys, 12–13) recognizes this problem and argues that “it is not necessary that the offender should have used precisely these words.” While that is true, one wonders then why Paul used such a formula at all, if it were not the offender’s that he was using.

See and .

This assumes, with others, that a part of their spirituality expressed itself in a kind of exaltation Christology. As Christ was raised and now lives “spiritually,” so too they are “in Christ” and therefore live above merely earthly affairs.

E.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 12, who says, “but elsewhere in Paul this phrase is never so far away from the verb it qualifies.” He adds, “This would not be a difficulty if there were an appreciable gain in meaning, but such is not in fact the case here.” But the question finally has to do with the main point of the sentence, which the present interpretation clearly supports.

See, e.g., Conzelmann, 97, who refers to L. Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (Oslo, 1932), 106ff.

This is my own (admittedly) awkward attempt to get at what seems clearly to be Paul’s own intent, that they are to consider him present when they are assembled in the name of the Lord, and that he would be thus because of the presence of the Spirit. For the full presentation of the argumentation for such a view, see my God’s Empowering Presence (121–27).

In passing, the reader should not miss the implicit high Christology in all of this, since both the verdict (“by the authority of our Lord Jesus”) and its execution (“with the power of the Lord Jesus”) are under Christ’s own divine jurisdiction; cf. Pauline Christology (139–40).

That they are the intended subject of the verb “to hand over” is argued in .

This more literal “translation” is intended to help identify some of the problems.

E.g., “Demon of the dead, . . . I hand over to you (παραδίδωμι) . . . [the name is missing], in order that. . . .” See Deissmann, LAE, 302 (my trans.).

This is true whether Paul actually wrote 1 Timothy or not. Remarkably, some scholars would eliminate this text as having relevance because they think Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, yet will allow that the remotest of parallels from pagan literature influenced him (e.g., Yarbro Collins, “Function”). But the Pastorals are Pauline even if he didn’t write them; here then is relevant usage of the most important kind. See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 23–24.

This seems true despite Godet’s arguments to the contrary (242–55); cf. MacArthur, “Spirit,” 249–50. The Jewish parallels for this activity are of some interest, but the language is not the same, nor is the intent of the action. On this matter see Forkman, Limits, 87–108 (see ).

This is the common view, and can be found in most of the literature. It goes hand in hand with the interpretation of “the destruction of the flesh” as referring to physical suffering or death. See below.

Cf. Calvin, 108: “While Christ reigns within, so Satan reigns outside, the Church”; Barrett, 126; Murphy-O’Connor, 41–42.

BDAG 4e.

Paul is not averse to doubling purpose clauses, but elsewhere he does so by twin clauses, not by this preposition and a final clause. See, e.g., ἵνα . . . ὅπως (1:28–29; 2 Thess. 1:11–12; 2 Cor. 8:14); εἰς τό . . . ἵνα (Rom. 7:4; 15:16); ἵνα . . . ἵνα (1 Cor 4:6; 7:5). The only expression similar to this is in Rom. 6:4, but in that case the εἰς τόν does not express purpose.

This is unfortunately missed in the NIV; the point is also neglected in most of the literature, including some of the more recent commentaries.

See inter alia Lightfoot, 204 (“physical suffering of some kind is implied, the purpose being remedial”); Morris, 88–89; and G. W. H. Lampe, “Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistle to the Corinthians,” in Christian History and Interpretation, Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge, 1967), 337–61.

Most expressed far greater confidence in this conclusion than the text allows. BDAG, e.g., despite so much good evidence against it, give death as the only option; cf. J. Schneider, TDNT 5:169; and Käsemann, “Sentences,” 71, who says this “obviously entails the death of the guilty.” Historically, this was the almost universal opinion of the commentators. Exceptions were Grosheide, 123; Barclay, 49; and Murphy-O’Connor, 41–42; and the first edition of this commentary; cf. R-P, 99, who combine physical punishment with destroying his sinful lusts. But with the appearance of the work of J. T. South (“A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8,” NTS 39 [1993], 539–61), the tide has finally shifted, so that it is now the majority position in the more recent commentaries in English (Witherington, Garland, Collins, Thiselton).

Gk. ὄλεθρον; see to BDAG.

Unless of course one wants to maintain that only such “shock” treatment would move the Corinthians past their arrogance. It is often implied that the notion that such a man should die is “repugnant” to moderns, and that we must not let our worldview shape our exegesis, so that we reject what Paul is saying because it is repugnant to us. This is indeed true; but the question is not one of “repugnance,” but whether in light of Paul’s own theology such a view can be maintained.

This is unfortunately missed in the NIV. Literally Paul’s Greek says, “to hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit might be saved on the Day of the Lord.” The whole sentence leads to this final purpose clause.

See in this regard the various suggestions by Barrett, 126–27. The problem with these suggestions, however, is that they do not seem to reflect Paul’s theology as we meet it elsewhere. See now the more recent and, from my perspective, definitive study by J. T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8,” NTS 39 (1993), 539–61.

In this regard see esp. the arguments in A. C. Thiselton, “The Meaning of ΣΑΡΞ in 1 Corinthians 5.5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 (1973), 204–28.

Jewett, Terms, 124, recognizes this, but resolves it by assuming the compilation-of-letters hypothesis of Weiss and Schmithals and then arguing that Paul himself at an earlier stage used this “gnostic” terminology, which he would later abandon. But that will not do, since this is not just a matter of terminology, but of Paul’s fundamental worldview, which derives from his Jewish heritage.

See, e.g., von Campenhausen, Authority, 135 n. 50; Donfried, “Justification,” 150–52; and Yarbro Collins, “Function,” 257–62, who interpret it as the Spirit within the community: if the Corinthians allow this man’s sin to remain unchecked in their midst, “the Spirit will be lost to the community” (Yarbro Collins, 260). But such a view does violence to the soteriological aspect of the verb “saved,” which has to mean something like “be kept safe for.” The eschatological reference to “the Day of the Lord” rules out such a possibility.

Another tack is taken by MacArthur, “Spirit,” who argues on the basis of the flexibility of the word πνεῦμα in Paul that it could refer to the man from the perspective of his being dead, hence “that the dead [man] might be saved.” It seems far better to find more flexibility in εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, which is linguistically verifiable, than to resort to such options, which appear to be not readily available to the Corinthians themselves.

Cf. Yarbro Collins, “Function,” 258–59.

To be sure, he does warn those who persist in their former sins that they may not inherit the eternal kingdom (6:9–11); but even that warning holds out the invitation to stop sinning so that such will not happen.

For a full discussion, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 160–68.

On this point, as well as several others in this presentation, see also J. Cambier, “La Chair et l’Esprit en 1 Cor v. 5,” NTS 15 (1968/69), 221–32.

Apart from Tertullian (pudic. 13–15), who knew his view was contrary to common opinion, this was the standard view in the early church, being found explicitly in Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Murphy-O’Connor, 42. The view of Havener, “Curse,” 340, that “spirit” = the “spiritual body” of 15:44 is too difficult to sustain. One wonders how the Corinthians, without some clue in the present passage, could possibly have so understood it.

See, e.g., Morris, 88, “But it is difficult to see how handing a man over to Satan would have such a purifying effect. Rather, we would expect the reverse, the stimulation of those lusts.”

Both here and in Gal. 5:9 D and some of the Western Fathers read δολοῖ, a corruption probably influenced by the Latin; cf. Metzger, 485.

The MajT and a few earlier witnesses (C Ψ 048 a sy^h) relieve Paul’s asyndeton by adding an οὖν (“therefore”).

Following the lead of the Sahidic and Syriac versions, the MajT adds ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (“for us”), which cannot have been original, since it is impossible to account for “omission” in all the early evidence.

For the sake of contemporary, esp. younger, readers raised in a culture where homemade bread is mostly a thing of the past, the vast majority of whom are thus basically clueless as to the meaning of “leaven,” the NIV translators, along with other contemporary English versions (NRSV, NEB [changed in the REB], NAB [but not ESV]) have chosen to combine the old and the new by interchanging “leaven” and “yeast,” knowing full well that “yeast” as such would have been unknown to Paul himself.

Gk. καύχημα, the noun of the verb that occurs in 1:29, 31; 3:21; 4:7. In this context it is a synonym of φυσιόω in v. 2. The shift from φυσιόω to καυχάομαι also occurred in 4:6 and 7.

Gk. οὐ καλόν; καλός here means something closer to “praiseworthy” than to morally righteous. Cf. on 7:1, 8, 26.

As Barrett (127) nicely put it.

On this matter, and for much of the discussion that follows, see C. L. Mitton, “New Wine in Old Wine Skins: IV. Leaven,” ExpT 84 (1972/73), 339–43; cf. also J. K. Howard, “ ‘Christ Our Passover’: A Study of the Passover-Exodus Theme in I Corinthians,” EvQ 41 (1969), 97–108.

See m. Pes. 1.1: “On the night of the 14th [of Nisan] the hametz [anything made from grains in which fermentation took place] must be searched for by the light of a lamp”; cf. the long discussion by the rabbis in the rest of the tractate. As a boy Paul had undoubtedly taken part in this annual ceremony. Chrysostom (hom. 15 in 1 Cor.) alludes to their searching out even mouseholes, but one cannot tell whether that has a basis in fact.

Gk. ἐκκαθάρατε, lit. “clean out, cleanse.”

This seems closer to Paul’s intent than the suggestion of some that he is dealing with “the old low level of heathen moral judgments” (Parry, 90; cf. Lightfoot, 204–5).

This word is not in Paul’s own text; it has been inserted by the translators for the sake of the reader, and in any case is implied by the preceding clause.

Cf. Barrett, 128: “The people of God have been freed from sin; because this is so, they must now avoid sin and live in obedience to God’s command. The imperative is unthinkable without the indicative, which makes the otherwise impossible obedience possible; the indicative is emasculated if the imperative, which gives it moral bite, is wanting.”

Gk. καὶ γάρ; cf. Lightfoot, 205, Barrett, 128, “for besides.”

Note the shift to the first plural, common in this letter, when he begins to speak of the larger Christian realities of which both he and the church are a part (cf. 2:7; 6:3, etc.).

Gk. τὸ πάσχα, lit. “the Passover.” The word can have other points of reference (e.g., to the whole Feast or the meal; see Mark 14:1 and 16), but the language of “being sacrificed” indicates that this is an allusion to the Paschal lamb. See the discussion in Jeremias, TDNT 5:895–903; cf. D. O. Wenthe, “An Exegetical Study of I Corinthians 5:7b,” Springfielder 38 (1974), 134–40.

Wenthe (see the previous note) suggests that the passive indicates that God is to be considered the active subject. But that seems an unlikely inference; starting with τὸ πάσχα as the grammatical subject forces this passive.

What is more significant is the use of the aorist, which points to the once-for-all event of the cross, not to any re-expression of it in the liturgy. On this matter, Lietzmann, 24, was more wishful than the data of the text allow.

Some have argued on the basis of 16:8 that the imagery was suggested to Paul by the season in which the letter was being written (cf. Lightfoot, 206; Weiss, 137; Findlay, 811; R-P, 102; Allo, 125–27; Barrett, 129–30; see the discussion in Hurd, 138–41). The point is moot; the mention of waiting till Pentecost in 16:8 makes it likely that the letter was written around Passover. The pronoun “our” may then be in contrast to “their,” referring to the Jews. On the other hand, the imagery here did not begin as a reference to Passover but with the proverb of v. 6, and therefore may simply have flowed naturally from one image to the next. Cf. Parry, 91: “The analogical character of the whole passage forbids any conclusion as to the date of the Epistle.”

Cf. Conzelmann, 98 n. 48.

There has been a long debate as to whether from this one can establish where Paul stood on the matter of the date of Christ’s death. But this text is of no help on this matter. See, e.g., H. Montefiore, “When Did Jesus Die?” ExpT 72 (1960/61), 53–54.

Gk. ἑορτάζωμεν, a NT hapax legomenon; the present tense is significant, implying the continual celebration of the Feast.

This has been suggested by several scholars. Cf. Héring, 37; Lias, 61; O-W, 187; and Wiles, Intercessory, 143 n. 3 and 146–47.

Gk. κακίας καὶ πονηρίας.

Gk. εἰλικρινείας, a Pauline word used esp. in dealing with the Corinthians (see 2 Cor. 1:12; 2:17; cf. Phil. 1:10).

Contra Conzelmann, “their corresponding opposites” (99). The proper opposites of κακία and πονηρία are “goodness” and “righteousness.”

See the commentary on 9:19–27.

NIV, “I have written.” See .

The MajT has attempted to alleviate a rough construction (see the dash in the NIV) with a καί before the οὐ. The KJV translated the καί as a slight adversative (“yet”).

An early variant conformed the whole list by changing this καί to an ἤ (P⁴⁶ Maj lat sy co). The translated text is almost certainly the original, where the words “greedy” and “swindlers” form a pair (P61vid * A B C D F G P 048 33 81 1175 1739 al); cf. Metzger, 485.

For the νῦν (“now”) of the majority of witnesses, a few (* C D 6 104 365 629 pm) have added an iota (νυνί), thus changing it from a temporal to a logical “now,” implying that the first ἔγραψα in v. 9 is also an epistolary aorist. Conzelmann considers the νῦν to be logical, translating “in actual fact I wrote you” (102); but that presses the logical νῦν past recognizable limits.

D Ψ Maj add a καί (“also”), implying, as vv. 3–5 suggest, that he does have the right to judge those on the inside, but that right does not extend also to those on the outside. But this would put the emphasis on Paul as the one who judges, which is not his intent here.

P⁴⁶ sy^p and cop^bo omit the οὐχί, thus turning the sentence into an imperative: “You judge those on the inside”; cf. Metzger, 485–86.

Since the original text and earliest MSS did not have accents, one cannot tell whether Paul’s κρινει here should be read κρίνει (“God judges”; cf. L Ψ 629 1241^s 2464 al d) or κρινεῖ (“God will judge,” as the majority, including most versions). In light of the eschatological judgments about to be mentioned in 6:2–4, the future is more likely; cf. Metzger, 486.

In typical fashion the MajT harmonizes to the LXX of Deut. 17:7 by adding a paratactic καί and changing the verb to a future (“and you shall . . .”).

On the larger issue of this letter and its role in the whole of the writing of 1 Corinthians, see the introduction, . The apparent disdain with which they have treated Paul in this matter helps to explain several of the other items in chaps. 7–16. Their letter back to him, mentioned in 7:1, is almost certainly their response to the previous letter, in which for the most part they are taking exception to what he has told them in that letter.

Marked both by the subject matter and asyndeton.

What cannot be known from this distance is whether this previous letter was in response to something already going on in Corinth, or whether Paul initiated the correspondence. The latter is the main thesis of Hurd’s Origin, in particular that by the former letter Paul communicated to them for the first time the content of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. This is a moot point, but is not the necessary conclusion of much else that Hurd has argued rather convincingly—esp. that their letter to Paul (see 7:1) is basically a response to this former letter, and therefore that our 1 Corinthians is in turn a response to their letter.

Gk. ἔγραψα. This must be a true aorist, not an epistolary aorist as in v. 11. The νῦν in v. 11, plus the prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ in this sentence, makes that clear. The English perfect in the NIV, “I have written,” defies explanation. Unfortunately it allows that they may not yet have received that communication. Everything in the chapter argues otherwise.

Gk. συναναμίγνυσθαι; cf. Hos. 7:8 and Philo, Mos. 1.278.

This was the suggestion of W. L. Knox (St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem [Cambridge, 1925], 320), quoted with approval by Hurd, 151.

This reconstruction seems to make more sense of the data, both in this section and in the letter as a whole, than that the Corinthian response to Paul’s letter had been either a polite request for clarification or an unintentional misunderstanding, the two most commonly held positions. The former is articulated by G. G. Findlay, “The Letter of the Corinthian Church to St. Paul,” Exp 6/1 (1900), 401–7. For the latter, see, among the commentaries, Moffatt, 60; Grosheide, 128; Morris, 91. Neither of these can account for the vigorous rhetorical style of Paul’s response, nor for the special nature of this response in attacking their pride as the primary issue.

Gk. οὐ πάντως; cf. Thiselton, “in no way” (408).

This position is argued for by Lightfoot, 208.

This is Conzelmann’s translation; cf. Parry, 92, “not meaning absolutely.” For a discussion see Findlay, 810. So also Collins (221). This is further supported by the plurals in this list, thus referring to the people who do such things, not to the sins as such.

For an analysis of these two lists, see P. S. Zaas, “Catalogues and Context: 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,” NTS 34 (1988), 622–29.

The best known of which are those in Galatians 5:19–21 (the infamous “deeds of the flesh” [for the argument that Galatians is not Paul’s earliest letter, see the introduction to my comm. on that letter, p. 4]) and Rom. 1:26–27, followed by vv. 29–30; for the expanded one in this letter see on 6:9–10 below. Cf. further 2 Cor. 12:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:5; 1 Tim. 1:9–10; 6:4–5; 2 Tim. 3:2–4.

On this question see esp. Hurd, 213–39. His is a maximal view, taking all of 1 Corinthians into account, and is very likely generally correct.

On this matter see G. D. Fee, “Εἰδωλόθυτα Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10,” Bib 61 (1980), 172–97.

Gk. πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρπαξιν; note Thiselton’s helpful rendering, “people who practice extortion,” although that might be a bit strong if, as seems likely, these two words very intentionally anticipate what follows in 6:1–11, where this is precisely the issue that is taken up in full.

Chrysostom also recognized this and made the greedy the main focus of his Homily 15. It was clearly a courageous thing for him to do, just as it would be in most Western congregations in our day.

Which is not quite the same thing as the “synonymous” suggested by Collins (221); see Thiselton’s rendering ( above).

Cf. 6:9–10, which includes these six (in a different sequence), plus four more.

They are also found among the philosophers; but that simply reflects what a common phenomenon this had become by the time of Paul. The classic study of the phenomenon is A. Vögtle, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (Münster/W., 1936); cf. the excursus in Conzelmann, 100–101. Among the more relevant texts see 1 Enoch 91:6–7; 3 Bar. 8:5; 13:4; Or.Sib. 2.254–83; Philo, sacr.AC 32 (the ultimate list!); det.pot.ins. 34.

1 Cor. 6:9–10; 2 Cor. 12:20–21; Gal. 5:19–21; Rom. 1:29–31; Col. 3:5, 8; Eph. 5:3–5; 1 Tim. 1:9–11; 2 Tim. 3:2–5; Tit. 3:3; cf. Mark 7:21–22; 1 Pet. 2:1; 4:3; Rev. 21:8; 22:15; note Garland (188), “The vice lists serve as a kind of electrified fence that warns about the limits of admissible conduct.”

The search for a “source” is futile, including the note by Deissmann, LAE, 316, that most of these words are found in their corresponding Latin form on the “counters” of what was apparently a very popular game. The Pauline lists are so diverse as to defy explanation. The only two from the longer list in 6:9–10 that are found in Gal. 5 are sexual immorality and idolatry; otherwise there are a couple of synonyms. So also with the list in Rom. 1.

Gk. λοίδορος; the adjective of the verb used in 4:12 to describe Paul’s treatment by those who hold a radically different worldview from his.

Cf. the section in Sir. 23:7–15 for a Jewish view of sins of speech. λοίδορος is the first item mentioned. Cf. also the NT as a whole, which shows great concern over matters of speech (cf. Mark 7:22; 2 Cor. 12:20; Rom. 1:29–30; Col. 3:8; 4:6; Eph. 4:29; 5:4; 1 Tim. 6:4; Jas. 3:1–12; 1 Pet. 2:23; 3:15–16). For the close connection of this vice with drunkenness, see Philo, somn. 2.164–69.

At least as it is seen among men. It was considered a vice for women.

For an example, see Lucian, Tim. 54–55.

See T.Jud. 14–16; 3 Bar. 4:17; Philo, cher. 92; somn. 2.164–69.

Cf. esp. Rom. 13:13 and the list of “night” sins; cf. the similar list of “night” sins in Philo, cher. 92–93. See also Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:3; 3:8; Tit. 1:6.

See, e.g., Findlay, 812.

It should be noted that the parallel is not exact, and that the discipline may be more drastic here than in Thessalonica.

The words “the church” are not in the text, but are added for clarification. The language “outside” and “inside” belongs to Paul’s Jewish heritage. Jews applied it to Gentiles; Jesus himself used it to refer to those who were not his disciples (Mark 4:11). Paul applies it to non-Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles (cf. 1 Thess. 4:12; Col. 4:5).

Cf. .

Indeed, the passage by no means intends that the church should not speak prophetically to the world, “judging” it for its injustices and unrighteousness. That is why God will eventually judge it, after all. The prophetic warning of God’s always imminent judgment must ever be a part of the church’s proclamation. This sentence has to do with not judging the world in the way they are to judge the incestuous man. In that sense the church has nothing to do with the world.

S. S. M. McDonough has argued that the entirety of chaps. 5 and 6 is structured in light of this citation (“Competent to Judge: The Old Testament Connection between 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,” JTS 56 [2005], 99–102). As R. B. Hays has suggestively pointed out (see ), the original context in Deuteronomy would seem to require an allusion to Deut 22:22–23:1 here as well. In this regard see esp. B. S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 (AGJU 22; Leiden, 1994), 61–93. For a rather extreme minimalist view of this as an “echo” of Deuteronomy, see C. M. Tuckett, “Paul, Scripture, and Ethics. Some Reflections,” NTS 46 (2002), 403–24 (esp. 411–16).

In what appears to be something of a (not convincing) tour de force, M. D. Goulder would turn this issue upside down, as it were, arguing that the Corinthians at fault in this case were “ascetics” rather than “libertines” (“Libertines? (1 Cor. 5–6),” NovT 41 [1999], 334–48).

Nothing in the text says this. The reason for so believing lies in the subject matter (it is nearly impossible, given the nature of the rhetoric with which Paul responds, even to imagine how they may have framed a question or statement about this matter), as well as in its place in the total letter (the mention of their letter does not occur until 7:1). Cf. Hurd, 84–85.

The nature of the matter is not mentioned or hinted at. Bernard, “Connexion,” argues that this continues the matter of chap. 5—Man A is the incestuous man, whose “wronged” father has taken him to court. But this leaves one with the difficult conclusion that Paul raises the father’s act to the same level of wrongdoing as that of his son, and indeed is more severe on him. Richardson, “Judgment,” would also make it a sexual matter, tying it to the sin of 6:12–20. The difficulty here is that (1) nothing in the language of 6:1–11 makes this probable (the sexual sins of the vice list do not help, since that list also includes greed and robbery); (2) there is insufficient evidence of such matters being brought before civil magistrates; and (3) the specific problem in 6:12–20 has to do with believers going to the prostitutes, not with one man wronging another over sexual irregularities.

For discussions of the broader issues of justice under Roman law, which were based on privilege and status, not individual equality, see J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (Ithaca, N.Y., 1967), and P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1970).

Cf. A. C. Mitchell, “The critical issue addressed . . . is communal” (“Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Corinthians 6.1–11,” NTS 39 [1993], 562–86, quotation from 563).

See for the entire list of occurrences.

This scholarly “guess” on my part seems to have been justified by the more precise and well-documented studies a few years later by J. K. Chow (Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth [JSNTSS 75; Sheffield, 1992], 123–43) and A. C. Mitchell, “Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Cor 6:1–11,” NTS 39 (1993), 562–86; cf. D. W. Gill, “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church,” TynB 44 (1993), 323–37.

On this matter see esp. B. W. Winter, “Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1 Cor 6:1–8,” NTS 37 (1991), 559–72 (repr. in his collection, Seek the Welfare of the City [Grand Rapids, 1994], 105–21).

Both here and in v. 9 the original NIV left out the connecting particle ἤ (“or”), an omission also attested in a few MSS (D² L 6 614 629 1241 pm), but hardly original.

For the rarer ἔνι several MSS substitute ἐστιν (P¹¹ D F G 6 104 365 630 1739 1881 al).

The Greek text reads ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ (lit. “between his brother”). Both J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, 99, and Zuntz, 15, argue that this represents a primitive corruption of ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ (cf. the latter’s “The Critic Correcting the Author,” Philologus 99 [1955], 295–303). Otherwise it is an ellipse; cf. G. M. Lee, “1 Corinthians vi.5,” ExpT 79 (1967/68), 310, and more recently, J. Kloha, “1 Corinthians 6:5: A Proposal,” NovT 46 (2004), 132–42.

So also NA²⁷, as well as the TR, WH, Bover, and Nestle, and most English translations. At issue is how one is to understand vv. 4 and 5, which were taken as indicatives in the original NIV; otherwise, the present NIV and most others (NRSV, REB, NAB).

Traditionally “saints” (so NRSV, ESV); see ; cf. Thiselton’s “God’s people,” borrowed from REB.

Gk. τολμάω (BDAG, “dare, have courage, be brave enough”); cf. 2 Cor. 10:12; 11:21 (ironic usage) and Rom. 5:7; the NEB had a nice touch with its “has he the face to.” Thiselton (423) rightly seconds Collins’s “have the effrontery” as nicely capturing Paul’s intent. The comment by Mare, 221 (“By ‘dare’ . . . he strongly admonishes rather than commands Christians to take their legal grievances for settlement before qualified Christians”), is about as far removed from Paul’s concern as it is possible to get. Mare’s entire comment on this verse is designed to justify going to secular courts to secure church property rather than to listen to Paul’s own concerns, which seem to be exactly the opposite—that the securing of property is of zero value for an eschatological people.

Gk. τις ὑμῶν (lit. “any one of you”), with the ὑμῶν functioning as a partitive. This τις probably means “a certain one,” as in 5:1 (cf. the singulars in vv. 5–6). It is common among commentators to speak as if there were several such cases going on in the community (e.g., Craig, 69; Grosheide, 133; Mare, 221). Despite the generalized plurals in vv. 7–8, it seems far more likely, as in 5:1–13, that he received reports of a single case that reflected on the whole congregation, esp. if the two brothers were also leaders in the community. See Hurd, 86.

Gk. πρᾶγμα ἔχων, with the preposition πρός. See the two illustrations in MM: ἁπλῶς μηδὲν ἔχουσα πρᾶγμα πρὸς ἐμέ (“. . . having no legal case at all against me”); μὴ ἔχοντας πᾶν πρᾶγμα πρὸς ἐμέ (“. . . not having any case against me”).

Cf. the OT where such adjudication was to be brought before the elders at the “gates” (e.g., Judg. 8:16; Ruth 4:2; Job 29:7–8).

For Paul’s use of “the Lord’s people” (lit. “the holy ones,” traditionally “saints”), which is esp. appropriate here as a contrast with “the ungodly,” see on 1:2.

On the basis of Exod. 21:1 the rabbis had concluded that it was unlawful for Jews to bring their cases before Gentile law courts. Cf. b. Git. 88b: “R. Tarfon used to say: In any place where you find heathen law courts, even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them, since it says, ‘These are the judgments which thou shalt bring before them,’ that is to say, ‘before them’ and not before heathens” (Soncino). For regulations see the Mishnaic tractate Sanhedrin. By the time of Paul, the Romans had granted the Jews liberty of settling internal matters, at least in Jerusalem; see E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. ed., ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black; Edinburgh, 1979), 2:208–9. B. S. Rosner would see Deut. 1:9–17 and Exod. 18:13–26 as having significance here (“Moses Appointing Judges: An Antecedent to 1 Cor 6,1–6?” ZNW 82 [1991], 275–78).

Gk. ἄδικοι, the opposite of δίκαιος (“just, righteous”). The verb esp. has the sense of acting unfairly toward someone (cf. v. 8); it is the appropriate term in this context, which has to do with legal matters, rather than “sinfulness” as such.

See Acts 16:37–39; 25:10–12. How pejorative Paul intended this description has been a matter of debate, since according to Luke’s narrative in Acts, Paul had something of a checkered history of relationship with the Roman legal system. Cf. further Garland’s discussion (196–97).

Cf. H. H. B. Ayles, “1 Corinthians vi.1,” ExpT 27 (1915/16), 334.

Or as R. H. Fuller put it in a contemporary English idiom, “washing their dirty linen in public” (cited by Thiselton, 429).

Along with starting the questions with τολμᾷ, the repeated use of this formula (vv. 2, 3, 9) here suggests the influence of the “diatribe,” a literary form popular with the pagan moralists in which the writer/speaker engaged the audience in an imaginary debate. See Bultmann, Stil; cf. S. K. Stowers, “A Critical Reassessment of Paul and the Diatribe: The Dialogical Elements in Paul’s Letter to the Romans” (Ph.D. diss., Yale, 1979). Since the use of the formula itself is a rhetorical device, one cannot determine here whether Paul expected them to know this already, or whether he is here adding to their understanding as to what it means to be an eschatological community.

This seems to make far more sense of the argumentation of these verses than to suppose that the greater urgency is “to prevent the private scandals of the community from being known by judges who did not share their faith” (M. Delcor, “The Courts of the Church of Corinth and the Courts of Qumran,” in Paul and Qumran [ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor; Chicago, 1968], 69). Delcor’s otherwise useful essay is considerably marred by his presupposition that the point of this passage was to set up an internal judicatory within the Christian community.

Conzelmann, 104–5, thinks so, considering it to be part of established elementary teaching, on the basis of 1 Thess. 5:1–11. But that passage only indicates that the return of Christ, expressed sometimes in apocalyptic motifs, was part of that teaching. In any case, the way the question is asked assumes that it is something they should know, whether they had been informed or not. It is certainly not intended to be flattering, as Hurd, 86, notes. “Can it be that you do not even know . . . ?”

Cf. Wis. 3:7–8: “They shall judge nations and rule over peoples”; 1 Enoch 1:9: “He will arrive with ten million of his holy ones (ἅγιοι) to execute judgment”; 95:3: “You righteous one, fear not the sinners! For the Lord will again deliver them into your hands, so that you may carry out against them anything that you desire”; 1QpHab 5:4: “But God will judge all the nations by the hand of his elect.” Cf. Rev. 20:4 and Matt. 19:28//Luke 22:30, which imply “judging” during the messianic age in the OT sense of the elders in the community, rather than executing sentences against the enemies of God. But see P. M. Hoskins (“The Use of Biblical and Extrabiblical Parallels in the Interpretation of First Corinthians 6:2–3,” CBQ 63 [2001], 287–97), who argues for the uniqueness of this perspective in Paul, and thus that the alleged parallels “are merely analogous to” it.

The text reads: εἰ ἐν ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος. The ἐν ὑμῖν in forensic settings can be either strictly instrumental (“by you”; cf. Ditt. Syl. 1.195.57–59, quoted by Conzelmann, 103, and favored by him) or somewhat local (“before you,” i.e., “in your court”; Parry, 95; Lightfoot, 210–11; BDF 219[1]).

Cf. NASB, NAB (“the lowest law courts”), Barrett, 136.

Most translations and commentaries.

See the two inscriptions cited by BDAG; cf. Diod.Sic. 36.3.3.

Gk. ἐλαχίστων (“least”), here elative, meaning “totally insignificant.” As Winter (After Paul Left Corinth, 58–62) points out, this language makes it certain that this is a case of civil, not criminal, litigation.

On this shift to the first plural see on 5:7; cf. 11:31.

Cf. 4:9. If for now Paul is a spectacle to the world, both angels and men, in these two questions the roles have been reversed!

Cf. 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; 1 Enoch 67–69. The text in 1 Enoch 91:15 that is often cited here is corrupt; it is not clear whether the angels are being judged or doing the judging (cf. OTP 1:73 n. 12).

Gk. μήτιγε; cf. BDF 427(3): “Elliptical μήτιγε 1 C 6:3 = πόσῳ γε μᾶλλον ‘not to speak of.’ ”

Gk. βιωτικά, a recurring word in the Greek world for matters of everyday life. Philostr. (V.Soph. 1.25.3) uses it to distinguish disputes over matters of everyday life (something close to “civil” cases), which should be settled at home, from graver offenses that need to be settled in court.

The conditional sentence in this case has ἐάν with the subjunctive in the protasis, indicating a present general condition; i.e., whenever such a situation prevails. . . .

Gk. τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους. The verb is esp. pejorative, meaning “to despise” or “reject with contempt.” It is used by Paul in 1:28 to refer to those whom God has chosen “to nullify the things that are” and in 1 Thess. 5:20 about rejecting prophesyings with contempt; cf. Rom. 14:3, 10; 2 Cor. 10:10; Gal. 4:14.

But see Findlay, 815, who would punctuate differently, making the opening βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια an absolute phrase, and τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους the object of ἔχητε. Thus: “Well, then, for secular tribunals—if you have men that are made of no account in the Church, set these on the bench!” But this seems forced; it is hard to imagine the Corinthians picking that up in their own reading of the letter.

Argued for again by J. D. M. Derrett (“Judgment and 1 Corinthians 6,” NTS 37 [1991], 22–36) and B. Kinman, “ ‘Appoint the Despised as Judges!’ (1 Corinthians 6:4),” TynB 48 (1997), 345–54; but they both rather totally disregard the issue of point (a) below, of the imperative occurring at the end of this rather long sentence.

Field, Notes, 171. Cf. A. Stein, who finds this problem so formidable that he offers a more improbable solution yet, that the “ungodly” before whom the Corinthians had taken their case were Jewish rabbis (“Wo trugen die korinthischen Christen ihre Rechtshandel aus?” ZNW 59 [1968], 86–90).

Cf. Jos., Ant. 13.75: “They requested the king to sit in council (καθίσαντα) with his friends and to hear their arguments on these matters” (Loeb, 7:263).

As, e.g., ESV, NRSV et al. For the complete lack of lexical support, see BDAG.

One solution for this point of view would be to see the word as designating believers from the pagan point of view, as in 1:28. But in such a case it would still divide the house, as it were, and the irony would be completely lost.

Gk. οὕτως, omitted in the NIV; it appears first in the sentence and is therefore emphatic, pointing to the condition that will be expressed in what follows; cf. Thiselton’s “has it come to this?”

See on 1:17 and 3:18; this is the last occurrence of the word group in 1 Corinthians (except in the list of the Spirit’s manifestations in 12:8). It is replaced in chap. 8 by its companion, γνῶσις.

Note the change from κρίνω, which in this context has meant either “go to law” or “eschatological judgment,” to διακρίνω, “to render a decision.” Note Thiselton’s rendering of the whole phrase: “one among you who is sufficiently ‘a wise person’ to be competent to arbitrate between two fellow believers.”

On this difficult wording, see .

It is just possible that Paul is also referring to the Jewish hakam, the scholar a step below the rabbi who could hear cases. See E. Dinkler, “Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus. Rechtsnahme und Rechtsversicht. 1 Kor 6.1–11,” in Signum Crucis. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen, 1967), 208. But that is to make the clause too juridical, when the point is clearly to shame them.

Gk. ἀλλά.

This has at least to do with their not being members of the believing community. For the possibility that it is also a sideswipe at the less than fair Roman judicial system, see Winter ( above), 569–71.

For a history of exegesis and application in the church see L. Vischer, Die Auslegungsgeschichte von I Kor. 6,1–11 (Tübingen, 1955). See also S. Meuter, Das Recht im Dienst der Versöhnung und des Friedens, Studie zur Frage des Rechts nach dem Neuen Testament (Zürich, 1972), who argues on the basis of this passage that Christians at all costs should avoid the secular courts, since they are based on the principle of retaliation for wrongs done.

The majority of MSS (including P^11vid A B C) read μὲν οὐν here, against the simple μέν of P⁴⁶ * D* 6 33 630 1739 1881 2495 pc. The latter is to be preferred (cf. Zuntz, 193). μὲν οὖν is a conformation to v. 4. The asyndeton marks a break in the argument; the solitary μέν implies a contrast that must be supplied from the context (in this case the following rhetorical questions); the NIV has captured this nicely with “the very fact that.”

A few MSS ( 629 1241 1881 pc) have the singular κρίμα, probably due to the dropping of a syllable through homoeoteleuton.

The NIV has these two verbs in reverse order, probably for reasons of English style.

The MajT reads ταῦτα, thus making the “wronging” and “cheating” two separate acts. Paul’s τοῦτο implies that we are dealing with a single deed.

For reasons that are not at all clear, the original NIV had an unfortunate paragraph break at v. 9, which was duly corrected in the 2011 revision. Even more so was K. E. Bailey’s attempt to make vv. 9–11 begin the argument of 6:12–20. See “Paul’s Theological Foundation for Human Sexuality: I Cor. 6:9–20 in the Light of Rhetorical Criticism,” ThRev 3 (1980), 27–41. In this case both the grammar of v. 9 and the content of vv. 9–11 stand quite against it.

As in the three instances in 5:4–5, there is a range of options as to the order of the names/titles here, including the addition of “our” (B P 33 1739 al [probably an assimilation to the following phrase]) and the omission of “Christ” (A Maj). An omission could have happened due to homoeoteleuton; more likely “Christ” was added for liturgical reasons; on this one the UBS committee was divided (Metzger, 486).

Gk. ὅλως; see on 5:1.

Gk. ἤττημα, found only here and in Rom. 11:12 and Isa. 31:8 (LXX) in the entire body of Greek literature. The verb means to “be overcome”; the noun implies defeat in the sense of suffering great loss. See Field, Notes, 160–61, 171–72.

Gk. κρίματα, which ordinarily means a judicial verdict, must here mean the lawsuit itself (cf. Exod. 18:22 LXX).

This is true even though the verbs are in the second plural. The plurals follow those of the first sentence, which had at least the two men in view; probably it also reflects the broadening of perspective noted above.

Which makes the observations by many (e.g., Héring, 41 n. 5; Conzelmann, 106) as to the somewhat parallel moral standards in the pagan philosophers of interest but generally irrelevant.

Gk. ἀδικέω; see entry 1 in BDAG (= “do wrong to someone; treat someone unjustly”).

Gk. ἀποστερέω. Cf. the addition to the commandments from the Decalogue in Mark 10:19 (“Do not defraud,” probably with reference to property rights of others), and Jas. 5:4, of wages that have been swindled from workers.

The usage in 7:5 where one partner in a marriage is “defrauding” the other of sexual relationships is seen by Richardson as a “sexual” tie to this passage (“Judgment,” 44–46). But the usage is quite unrelated and would be purely coincidental even if some kind of sexual wrongdoing were involved in this instance.

Gk. ἀλλά; the “instead” of the NIV gives one the impression that these words might be addressed to the same person; but the change from the passive to active disallows that.

Field, Notes, 172, following Alford, suggests that the verbs in v. 7 are middle (= “allow yourself to be wronged”); but that is also the sense they must take if they are passive.

As in v. 2, an ἤ ties this rhetorical question directly to v. 8. This esp. mitigates the probability that a new section is starting here (see ).

This, of course, is a matter that is esp. impolitic in the present climate of Western culture in general, and recent biblical scholarship in particular; this in turn makes both the public reading of such texts and the writing of commentary on the same a bit more dicey than it was a quarter of a century ago.

As Collins (230) rightly points out, by and large these vice lists “generally pertain to issues with which Paul continues to be concerned throughout the letter.”

E. K. C. Wong (“The Deradicalization of Jesus’ Ethical Sayings in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 48 [2002], 181–94) makes what appears to be a totally unwarranted judgment that Paul is here “deradicalizing” the ethics of Jesus. This is both to assume too much (that Paul actually had a Jesus logion in view) and to disregard Paul’s own context by equally far too much.

As in 4:5 and 7:5 (q.v.) this is a present prohibition, which implies that they are to stop something that is already going on.

Gk. μὴ πλανᾶσθε (cf. 15:33; 3:18 has a different verb). As with the verbs in v. 7 this can be either passive or middle; in either case it comes out at the same point.

R. Scroggs (The New Testament and Homosexuality [Philadelphia, 1983], 101–9) has argued that the lists here and in chap. 5 have no special relationship to the context. But that is not quite true. Not all may be related to the immediate context, but most of them at least can be shown to relate esp. to the problems Paul is encountering in this church. See above on 5:9–10. On the other side, the attempt by Bailey (“Foundation,” 27–29) to divide the list into two sets of five each, the first dealing with sexual sins and the second with disorders at the Lord’s Table, not only misses the present context altogether but presses “idolatry” into a meaning it cannot sustain (“sacred prostitution”), not to mention missing its clear relationship to 10:1–22. For an esp. even-handed overview of this discussion in the literature, see Thiselton, 447–53.

Gk. κλέπται, the standard word for all such crime that is covered by our word “thief.”

See the papyrus cited by Deissmann, LAE, 164: Ζηνόβιον τὸν μαλακόν (“Zenobius the effeminate”); and Dion.Hal. 7.2.4, who describes Aristodemus, the tyrant of Cumae, as “a man of no obscure birth, who was called by the citizens Malacus or ‘Effeminate’ . . . either because when a boy he was effeminate and allowed himself to be treated as a woman, as some relate, or because he was of a mild nature and slow to anger” (Loeb, 4:151). Dionysius’s first option is surely pejorative and thus helps us with its meaning here, despite J. Boswell’s arguments to the contrary (see Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality [Chicago, 1980], 339–40). What makes this certain is a passage like Philo’s spec.leg. 3.37–39, in which he gives a biting description of pederasty, and is esp. harsh on the youths who deck themselves out as women for such purposes. One of the nouns he uses to describe such degeneracy is malakia (“Furthermore he [speaking of the ‘lover,’ the active male partner] sees no harm in becoming a tutor and instructor in the grievous vices of unmanliness and effeminacy [μαλακία]” [Loeb, 7:499–501]).

On this matter, and for many other items in this discussion, see Scroggs, Homosexuality, whose presentation is a model of fairness to all sides. He seems to be basically correct at this point; it is less likely that his case can hold that this is the only kind of homosexuality that is condemned in the NT. The very fact that Paul includes women in Rom. 1:26 tells against Scroggs’s whole reconstruction of this matter. The appeal to silence in this instance is esp. weak; see further the discussion in Garland (213–15).

This seems certain from the rest of the words in the list, and esp. from the first sentence in v. 11: “Such were some of you,” implying that behavioral change had taken place.

This designation is from Scroggs, Homosexuality; see esp. his discussion of this word on 62–65.

This is precisely the point that Boswell missed in his long discussion of this word (Christianity, 341–52). He himself points out the vulgarity of the word by offering the English equivalent; what Boswell seemed to have missed is that for a long period this English equivalent was also seldom found in literature of the kind preserved for posterity for the same reason the Greek one was avoided—it would ordinarily have offended good taste. Paul apparently is not above the use of such if it will make its proper impact (see 4:13; cf. Phil. 3:8).

Christianity, 335–53; cf. the considerably misguided attempt by J. H. Elliott to do the same (“No Kingdom of God for Softies? or, What Was Paul Really Saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 in Context,” BTB 34 [2004], 17–40); for a strongly opposite perspective that seems to cross the line in the other direction, see J. B. De Young (“The Source and NT meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται, with Implications for Christian Ethics and Ministry,” MSJ 2 [1992], 191–215).

One should also note the strong caution raised by W. L. Peterson about the use of personal “nouns” here, which even though they are nouns in Paul’s Greek, are more often pointed toward sinful activities than some kind of “state of being” (“Can arsenokoitai Be Translated ‘Homosexuals’? (1 Cor. 6.9; 1 Tim. 1.10),” VigC 40 [1986], 187–91).

See the chapter on Judaism in Scroggs, Homosexuality, 66–98; cf. Garland (213 n. 31) for a list of the Jewish sources reflecting their basic abhorrence of such activity.

Note how often in this letter Paul concludes on a positive note after such an argument or warning: e.g., 3:22–23; 4:14–17 (as a conclusion to all of 1:18–4:21); 5:7; 6:20; 10:13; 11:32.

Gk. ταῦτα, referring to the whole list. The neuter is striking; one would expect τοιοῦτοι. The neuter functions in a more dramatic way to express horror or contempt (= “these abominations”).

Gk. ἀπελούσασθε (only here and in Acts 22:16 in the NT). Some make a considerable point of the fact that the verb is middle and offer such forced translations as “you had yourselves washed,” giving further theological significance to this being a voluntary act on the part of the one being baptized (e.g., Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 163; Fung, “Justification,” 250; R-P, 119). But much of that discussion will not “wash,” since the verb occurs almost altogether in the middle. This is a middle that functions like a passive. Cf. Dunn, Baptism, 123, and most English translations.

For the use of the term “Kingdom of God” in Paul, see on 4:20 above. It is of some interest that, in the first two of its occurrences in this letter, one encounters both the “already” and the “not yet” aspect of the “kingdom,” which was characteristic of the teaching of Jesus as well. For further discussion see B. S. Rosner, “The Origin and Meaning of 1 Corinthians 6,9–11 in Context,” BibZeit 40 (1996), 250–53.

On this matter see esp. Thiselton’s excursus “Justification by Grace in 6:11 and in the Epistle” (455–58), plus the helpful discussion in Garland, 212–14.

It is difficult to resist seeing in this verb (δικαιόω) something of a wordplay on the adj. ἄδικοι in vv. 1 and 9 and the verb ἀδικέω in vv. 7–8.

Some are anxious about the ordering of these verbs, as if Paul were thereby making some kind of theological statement that does not seem to fit our own dogmatic categories. This is true even of C. A. A. Scott’s attempt to read the verbs in reverse order (i.e., behind each action lay the former one; see Christianity according to St. Paul [Cambridge, 1927], 120).

The repetition of ἀλλά before each verb also argues for this (cf. Fung, “Justification,” 251). Contra Scott (previous note). Cf. the less than convincing presentation by Bailey, “Foundation,” 28–29, who argues that the sentence has step parallelism, with each verb corresponding in sequence to the persons of the Trinity mentioned in the prepositional phrases (washed = Christ; sanctified = Spirit; justified = God). This destroys Paul’s own parallelism found in the two nicely balanced prepositional phrases.

This is standard usage in the NT, except for Acts 2:38, which has ἐπί; one wonders, therefore, whether the ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ of Acts 10:48 goes with βαπτισθῆναι or, as elsewhere in the NT, with the verb “command.”

It should perhaps also be pointed out that the collocation of “the name of Jesus” with baptism does not occur in Paul. In the name of Jesus one “commands” (2 Thess. 3:6), “appeals” (1 Cor. 1:10), “judges” (5:3–4), “does all things” (Col. 3:17), “gives thanks” (Eph. 5:20), and “is washed, sanctified, justified” (here); but nowhere is one “baptized” ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι of Jesus.

For a similar view see Dunn, Baptism, 120–23; cf. Barrett, 141, who allows that “baptism is in mind,” but that “it is the inward meaning rather than the outward circumstances of the rite that is important to Paul.” For the view that it refers to baptism see Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 162–67, and most of the other literature on baptism, as well as most commentaries.

The sixth occurrence in the letter (see 1:2, 3, 7, 8, 10), but the first since the salutation/thanksgiving.

Marcion attests an interesting addition: “so that the temple is for God, and God for the temple.” This is a commentary on the text in light of 3:16 and 6:19.

There are three variants for this verb: ἐξήγειρεν (P⁴⁶ [2nd corr.] B 6 1739 pc it); ἐξεγειρεῖ (P¹¹ P⁴⁶* A D P 1241 pc); ἐξεγερεῖ (P⁴⁶ [1st corr.] C Ψ Maj vg sy^h co Iren Tert Epiph Ambrst). The first reading is a conformation to the preceding aorist; the second probably is a misreading of the third. The parallelism of the sentences requires the future; otherwise the argument is lost. See the commentary; cf. Metzger, 486–87.

Several MSS (F G P Ψ 81 104 pc) dropped the final ς from ἄρας so that it reads ἄρα οὖν, probably due to the frequency of this combination in Romans. Héring, 43, adopted this reading, but his argument is less than convincing.

The evidence is evenly divided over whether this clause begins with an ἤ (“or”; cf. 6:2 and 9). This is not easily decided; cf. the discussion in Zuntz, 195, who concludes, “On the balance, then, the shorter reading would appear to be original.”

Paul’s original text is in the singular. A number of MSS (A L Ψ 33 81 104 365 1175 1181 1495 pc) read the plural here. This represents an attempt to clarify what is certainly Paul’s intent. On the grammar, see .

In some early MSS Paul’s δή was changed to ἄρα γε; this in turn was misread in the West so that almost the entire Latin tradition has an addition, “and bear,” that is the result of reading ἄρα γε as ἄρατε. See Metzger, 487; Zuntz, 169.

The MajT, with no early Greek support, has the addition καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὕμῶν, ἅτινά ἐστιν τοῦ θεοῦ (“and your spirit, which are God’s,” KJV). This addition, which misses the whole point of the argument, reflects the influence of Greek dualism on the later church, which had great trouble with the body; cf. Metzger, 487–88.

It should also be noted that both the nature of the argumentation and the content have strong affinities to 7:1–7, which immediately follows. For the first time in the letter Paul quotes and corrects a Corinthian position, a form of argument that occurs several times again in chaps. 7–16, where he is responding to their letter. Furthermore, there seems to be more than just a casual tie between this section and the “sexual immoralities” of 7:2 and “lack of self-control” in 7:5, which are related specifically to some who are “depriving” their marriage partners of sexual relations, apparently because they think they have “authority over their own bodies” even in the marriage relationship (7:3–4). Is this deprivation the reason why some of the men are visiting the prostitutes?

πορνεία occurs two times; πόρνη (“prostitute”) two times; πορνεύω (“practice prostitution”) one time; σῶμα (“body”) eight times. On the Greek attitude toward porneia see the introduction to 5:1–13 and the comments on 5:1 (pp. 214–15).

This is the standard view, found in most of the older commentaries. After an aside over the matter of lawsuits, Paul returns to the issue of sexual immorality from 5:1–13, for which he is now giving a general theological argument. See, e.g., R-P, 121; Grosheide, 143; Lenski, 233.

Otherwise, Hurd, 86, who asserts that “in this passage he does not refer to any specific action of the Corinthians.” But the combination of their arguments in vv. 12–13 with the explicit mention of intercourse with prostitutes in vv. 15–16 is as specific as anything that has preceded.

A completely different tack was taken by R. Kempthorne (“Incest and the Body of Christ: A Study of I Corinthians VI.12–20,” NTS 14 [1967/68], 568–74; cf. M. Miguens, “Christ’s ‘Members’ and Sex (1 Cor 6,12–20),” Thomist 39 [1975], 42–48, who cites it approvingly), who on the basis of a few linguistic ties suggests that Paul is here returning to the problem of 5:1–13. This is highly unlikely; the case rests on an accumulation of possible, but mostly improbable, interpretations. Even more off base is the attempt by P. Nejsum to turn the entire passage in to a Pauline plea for asceticism(!) (“The Apologetic Tendency in the Interpretation of Paul’s Sexual Ethics,” ST 48 [1994], 48–62).

But see B. W. Winter, who argues cogently that the background to the entire passage is the “banqueting” of the social elite in the church (chap. 6 in Seek the Welfare of the City [see above]).

G. Snyder, “The Literalization of the Apocalyptic Form in the New Testament Church,” BibRes 14 (1969), 5–18, divides the section between vv. 12 and 13, a division that is not self-evident.

B. S. Rosner would make this a matter of temple prostitution (“Temple Prostitution in 1 Cor 6:12–20,” NovT 40 [1998] 336–51), but that would then turn what seems clearly to be a moral issue into a religious one; Paul’s rhetoric simply doesn’t go in that direction.

It should be noted that the passage is full of unique, and in some cases difficult, expressions, which in turn have given rise to equally unique interpretations. Much of the problem here lies with the nature of the argumentation, in which Paul’s rhetorical forms sometimes dictate the way the language appears. The difficulties arise when such language is pressed beyond its intent in the argument itself.

For a considerable and helpful exception see esp. B. Byrne, “Eschatologies of Resurrection and Destruction: The Ethical Significance of Paul’s Dispute with the Corinthians,” Downside Review 104 (1986), 288–96.

C. Spicq, Théologie Morale du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1965), 2:654, thinks otherwise; but see B. J. Dodd (“Paul’s Paradigmatic ‘I’ and 1 Corinthians 6.12,” JSNT 59 [1995], 39–58), who would prefer to see this simply as characteristic of Paul’s own persuasive style in this letter, so that this passage and its repetition in 10:23 should be viewed as something of an inclusio, all of which is an argument for a “principled life of self-control in consideration of others.” But one has to wonder whether the Corinthians themselves could have caught on if this were Paul’s intent.

This is a key idea among the Cynics, Stoics, and Gnostics. The latter, of course, are too late to influence Paul’s Corinth; but the terminology has close affinities with Stoicism-Cynicism. See J. Dupont, Gnosis (Louvain, 1960), 298–308; cf. the discussion in Conzelmann, 108–10.

Cf. Conzelmann, 110: “What Paul here presents is nothing else but the πάντα ὑμῶν—ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, ‘all things are yours—but you are Christ’s,’ of 3:21ff.”

Thiselton, 781, prefers “liberty” so as to maintain the wordplay, “not let anything take liberties with me.”

Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 93, makes a considerable jump in the use of language to see this word group as having to do with tension between Paul and them over the Mosaic law. This simply is not Paul’s ordinary forensic vocabulary.

Gk. συμφέρει, found only in the Corinthian letters in Paul. This, too, is a Stoic word, but Paul is using it differently. See Diog.L. 7.98; Epict. 1.22.1. On this matter cf. T. Radcliffe, “ ‘Glorify God in Your Bodies’: 1 Corinthians 6,12–20 as a Sexual Ethic,” New Blackfriars 67 (1986), 306–14.

Cf. NEB (“not everything is for my good,” changed in the REB to “not all things are expedient”); Daube, “Pauline,” 229; Findlay, 818.

So Lightfoot, 214; R-P, 123; Conzelmann, 109; Holladay, 84.

Gk. ἐξουσιασθήσομαι (= will not be enslaved, mastered, overpowered); cf. 7:4.

As Barrett, 146, nicely puts it: “Christian liberty is not licence, for licence is not more but less than liberty.”

See Bachmann, 240–41; W. Foerster, TDNT 2:575; Kempthorne, “Incest,” 569; Miguens, “Christ’s,” 38.

The difficulties here can be seen by comparing several English translations. The original NIV in particular seemed to have missed the structure of Paul’s argument by far too much, in making Proposition I2 (in the argument that follows) a part of Paul’s response rather than part of the Corinthians’ justification for their adultery.

Contra Garland (226), who has denied that any of this comes from Corinth; see the rebuttal in Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 24–26.

This formal structure has also been recognized by C. H. Giblin, In Hope of God’s Glory: Pauline Theological Perspectives (New York, 1970), 141; cf. Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 87; Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 22–23; and Bailey, “Foundation,” 31.

This is the only other structural difference between the two parts: The καί—καί (both—and) must precede the verb in this instance, rather than the object proper, because of the change of tense in the verbs. This is one of the sure clues that the future is the correct reading (see above).

Unfortunately, and in some ways inexplicably, this δέ was left out of the original NIV, apparently because of a failure to recognize the preceding clause as absolutely crucial to the Corinthians’ own position.

This slogan seems to be closely related to the issue of idol food in chaps. 8–10. It has esp. close affinities with 8:8, which also seems to reflect a Corinthian position. Whether Paul is himself bringing that argument of theirs to bear here, or whether they had used the same argument for both food and sex, cannot be known. Probably the latter.

This is the view of the majority of commentators. See the chart in Hurd, 68. What is less certain is how much of it constitutes that slogan. On the one hand, the rhythmic chiasm of part 1 suggests perhaps only that much (cf. RSV). This may be so, but that would mean that part 2 is Paul’s own addition to their slogan, indicating not only his agreement with it, but his readiness to press it to its logical conclusion. Thus the NEB: “ ‘Food is for the belly and the belly for food’, you say. True, and one day God will put an end to both.” On the other hand, since the whole of Proposition I sets up the contrast in II, it is more likely that it represents the Corinthian position in its entirety—although in its present form it comes from Paul’s own hand. In this case one would put quotation marks around the whole (cf. NAB; Héring, 46; Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 87–88; Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 24–26).

What does not seem to make any sense is to take part 1 as a slogan, and part 2 as its qualification (as the NIV, GNB). Under this view the slogan would be an extension of their libertine argument: “Not only is everything permitted me, but food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, so let’s live it up and eat anything and anywhere we please.” Paul then qualifies this libertine position by pointing to eschatological realities. While this might well fit their attitude at various points, such a reconstruction does not fit the argument here. First, it makes their libertine attitude the whole point, which it is not; second, it gives the point about eating independent value in the middle of an argument that has nothing to do with eating; third, this kind of qualification on Paul’s part would play right into their hands, rather than truly modify their position. The fact that neither food nor stomach has any eschatological significance would be quite in keeping with their libertine point of view!

Gk. καταργήσει; see the discussion on 1:28.

This is in keeping with Paul’s own view in chap. 15 that the resurrected body is not somatic (i.e., composed of its present material form), but pneumatic (i.e., transformed into a “spiritual body”); see on 15:42–49. The one is mortal, the other immortal; the one is lowly, the other glorious (cf. Phil. 3:21). Such a body has no need for the stomach and food.

For a different view, see Gundry, 54–59 (supported by Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 24–26), who argues that by the reformulation in Proposition II Paul is intending to deny the Corinthian position in Proposition I as to the stomach as well. That is, “stomach” here stands as a synecdoche for “body” and Paul is saying, “Not so, the ‘stomach/body’ is not intended for destruction; it is ‘for the Lord’ and therefore intended for resurrection.” This would be more attractive if the qualification of Proposition II were simply: “But the Lord is for the body, and the body for the Lord.” As it is, this Proposition has its own internal qualification, “not for porneia, but,” which makes the contrast not simply between the body destined for destruction and the body destined for resurrection, but between stomach/food and body/porneia.

Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 90, makes the puzzling extrapolation that their slogan would have run, “any man for any woman, and any woman for any man.” Not only is that not parallel, but the context explicitly designates the problem as men going to female prostitutes.

Basing their comments on Weiss, 160–61, both Bultmann (Theology, 1:194–95) and J. A. T. Robinson (The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology [London, 1952], 29) argue that “body” is Paul’s basic term for the whole person, meaning something close to “personality.” This has become such a byword in NT studies that almost everyone writing on this text since then has either assumed or explicitly stated that that is what “body” means throughout this passage. But that conjecture has no basis in this passage whatsoever; Gundry has demonstrated convincingly that it is not true of Paul in general (cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 20–21). In this case it totally misses Paul’s own concern, which stands over against the false view of the Corinthians that the physical body has no eternal significance.

This is esp. where a large number of convoluted interpretations have taken place (see ). Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 22–23, who says of these attempts that “they must be classified as unintelligibly pretentious, or ingeniously imaginative, or intolerably pious.”

The idea that the “body of Christ,” the church, might also be in view here, even in a secondary way, is completely gratuitous. See Bailey, “Foundation,” 32.

As long as v. 14 was treated as a separate theological statement, somewhat unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, it was inevitable that one day someone would argue that it was a gloss. See U. Schnelle, “1 Kor 6:14—eine nachpaulinische Glosse,” NovT 25 (1983), 217–19. Cf. the rebuttal in Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 261–62.

Some have seen the replacement of the personal pronoun ἡμᾶς for σώματα as evidence that σῶμα here means “whole person” (see ). But that is to miss Paul’s usage altogether. Here is another case where the language is dictated by the structure of the parallels. The reason for the shift has to do with his use of τὸν κύριον in the first clause, with which ἡμᾶς is in balance, not σώματα. The context, plus the argument of chap. 15, makes it clear that Paul here intends: God raised the Lord bodily, and he will raise us bodily. Cf. Gundry, 60; Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 262.

Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 80–86, argues quite unconvincingly that the present passage is addressed to Jewish converts. But he appeals to nothing in this text as supporting such a view; rather, he urges that such might be true elsewhere (which is most unlikely) and therefore should be so here as well. See n. 12 in the introduction (p. 4 above).

Gk. ἄρας; “take up” or “take away,” not simply “take,” which would be λαβών. Cf. Lightfoot, 216, et al.

This literal rendering of the text shows the linguistic connection between the two parts of the sentence missing in the NIV’s “unite them with a prostitute.”

The question as to whether the problem involves temple or brothel prostitution is moot. In favor of the former is the use of temple imagery in vv. 19–20 and the apparently close tie between idolatry and committing sexual immorality in 10:7 and 8, plus the similar prohibitions in 6:18 and 10:14. On the other hand, temple prostitution as such is unknown in the Greek city-states. See Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 55–57. Most likely, therefore, this refers to brothels or courtesans.

Gk. μέλος, referring specifically to the “limbs” and “organs” of the body. Once “body” came to be used metaphorically, this word naturally followed. See J. Horst, TDNT 4:555–68.

This has been commonly suggested. See, e.g., L. Cerfaux, The Church in the Theology of St. Paul (ET, New York, 1959), 279–80; B. M. Ahern, “The Christian’s Union with the Body of Christ in Cor, Gal, and Rom,” CBQ 23 (1961), 202; Kempthorne, “Incest,” 570–72; Bailey, “Foundation,” 35–36.

Those who try to connect this passage with 12:12–26 not only miss this very significant difference, but also then miss the point of the present argument.

Gk. μὴ γένοιτο; the first appearance in the extant letters, and the only appearance in 1 Corinthians. It is thoroughgoing in Galatians and Romans. The phrase is common in the diatribe. But see A. J. Malherbe, “ΜH ΓΕΝΟΙΤΟ in the Diatribe and Paul,” HTR 73 (1980), 231–40, who has argued that its use in Paul is very little like the diatribe in general, but is like Epictetus’s use in particular, where it functions not as the termination of an argument, but rather as a transition: “It may therefore be the case that this way of rejecting an objection or false conclusion is more characteristic of the type of schoolroom instruction in which Epictetus engaged than street corner preaching” (239).

Gk. κολλώμενος; the verb in Gen. 2:24 is προσκολλᾶσθαι. Since the noncompounded form does not ordinarily imply sexual imagery, some scholars have argued that Paul “by simply removing a prefix, takes the directly sexual reference away from these two verses” (J. I. Miller, “A Fresh Look at I Corinthians 6.16f.,” NTS 27 [1980], 127; cf. Miguens, “Christ’s ‘Members,’ ” 44–45). But that is to miss Paul’s point completely. First, the noncompounded form is used for a similar relationship with a harlot in Sir. 19:2; second, the choice of this verb, which can go either way, is predicated on the second sentence, the relationship with Christ, where the verb from Genesis would be less appropriate. S. E. Porter (“How Should κολλώμενος in 1 Cor 6,16.17 Be Translated?” (ETL 67 [1991], 105–6) has argued that the verb should be rendered “the one who sells himself into bondage (i.e. obligates himself),” as a way of reconciling the two references, first to sexual relations (v. 16) and then to one’s relationship with God (v. 17). But this seems to be an unnecessary move to extricate Paul from an apparent problem that exists only because Paul is so willing to use language in such striking ways so as to catch the “reader’s/hearer’s” attention.

The Greek text has the article, “the prostitute.” She is no longer thought of as an individual, but as a member of a class.

Gk. γάρ; clearly explanatory here.

Gk. φησίν; a common classical idiom, but found only here as an introductory formula in the Pauline letters. Ellis, Use, 23, suggests, without argument, that Paul intends God as the speaker, even though the OT does not so indicate. However, Paul’s use of φησίν in 2 Cor. 10:10 is almost certainly impersonal and argues for such a meaning here.

Paul is citing the LXX, which, along with the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum of Jonathan, adds the words οἱ δύο. Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 109–10, argues that Paul is here responding to Jewish Christians who have rejected the Mosaic law; hence his appeal to Gen. 2:24 is an appeal to “pre-fall material,” which Paul classed “differently from the Law and retained as a foundational element in his thought.” Both this assertion and the presupposition on which it is based cannot be substantiated exegetically.

See esp. Eph. 5:25–33. Because this is true, and esp. because of the widely held view that σῶμα refers to the “whole person” (see above), some have argued that the greater union is also in view here. See, e.g., R. Batey, “The ΜΙΑ ΣΑΡΞ Union of Christ and the Church,” NTS 13 (1966/67), 270–81; cf. W. J. Bartling, “Sexuality, Marriage, and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 6:12–7:16: A Practical Exercise in Hermeneutics,” CTM 39 (1968), 362. Despite the use of the same text from Genesis, however, the application in Ephesians has such a different point from this one that Batey’s argument for this text is nearly irrelevant. Even further off the mark are the questions by T. A. Burkill, in response to Batey, since they assume concerns on Paul’s part that are either unfounded or quite beside the point of this text. See “Two into One: The Notion of Carnal Union in Mark 10:8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31,” ZNW 62 (1971), 115–20.

Contra Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 102–7.

Cf. Dunn, Baptism, 123–24. For a considerable argument against those who would see this usage as contrasting “spirit” with “body,” with the latter being a lesser union, see Gundry, 65–69. Such an idea is so foreign to the context that one wonders how anyone could have convinced himself/herself of its validity.

Conzelmann, 112, suggests that v. 18 “gives the impression of an intrusion: a rational argument inserted into the pneumatological argument of vv. 17 and 19.” But this misses the urgency of the situation, not to mention the connection with the rest of the context, which has to do with sinning against one’s body, which is “for the Lord.”

Gk. φεύγετε; present imperative, implying “keep running from.” Cf. 2 Tim. 2:22 and Gen. 39:12.

Cf. Joseph’s example in Genesis 39. B. S. Rosner probably presses the concept of “quotation,” not to mention “allusion,” a bit too much in suggesting that Paul had the Testament of Reuben 5:5 in mind at this point (“A Possible Quotation of Test. Reuben 5:5 in 1 Corinthians 6:18a,” JTS 43 [1992], 123–27). Interesting similarities, whose relationships are always moot, are in any case a considerable distance from “borrowing” or “quoting.”

This is the most common difficulty (as e.g., Best, One Body, 75, who mentions drunkenness, gluttony, and suicide as sins “against the body”). See now B. N. Fisk (ΠΟΡΝΕΥΕΙΝ as Body Violation: The Unique Nature of Sexual Sin in 1 Corinthians 6.18,” NTS 42 [1996], 540–58), who on the basis of the threefold “do you not know that” (vv. 15, 16, 19), argues that sexual immorality is in turn a “Christ-violation, body-violation and Spirit-violation,” and that the second of these (union with a prostitute), in keeping with Paul’s Jewish wisdom heritage, is seen “to be profoundly (and even uniquely) self-destructive” (557).

Gk. εἰς, the ordinary idiom with the verb ἁμαρτάνω. It is just possible, as Gundry, 73, argues, that the sense of “within” is intended, as opposed to ἑκτός, “without.”

As noted above, to make the “body” refer to the “body of Christ, the church,” does not seem viable. See esp. Kempthorne, “Incest,” 572; and K. Romaniuk, “Exégèse du Nouveau Testament et ponctuation,” NovT 23 (1981), 199–205. The difficulties in making sense of “his own body” in the second clause is what defeats this option, not to mention its lack of support from the context itself. It may be that this is something of a “rhetorical flourish,” as J. Murphy-O’Connor has suggested, and thus not so much an assertion of the moral uniqueness of fornication (“The Fornicator Sins against His Own Body [1 Cor 6:18c],” RB 115 [2008], 97–104), but that is perhaps to become too “literal” regarding Paul’s own language, who was probably not “modern” enough to view gluttony, e.g., as a “sin against the body” in the same way.

Apparently this was first suggested by W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (New York, 1874), 2:43. More recent advocacy can be traced to Moule, 196–97. The most thorough argument in its favor is Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 21–22. Cf. Hurley, “Man and Woman,” 112–14, and the commentaries by Murphy-O’Connor, 50–51, and Thrall, 49. Both Kempthorne and Romaniuk (see the preceding note) also favor it, although the latter argues that it should be read as a question.

Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 21–22. As he notes, this more than adequately answers Gundry’s objection (73–74) to Moule that if it were a Corinthian libertine slogan, it would need to have said: “All sin is outside the spirit.”

At this point the formal correspondence with vv. 13–17 is not quite precise, since this paragraph begins with the prohibition, to which this statement as a Corinthian slogan does not seem to have an immediate connection.

If it were a quotation from them, of course, they would not find it as abrupt as we tend to.

This is the primary objection in B. Byrne, “Sinning against One’s Own Body: Paul’s Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:18,” CBQ 45 (1983), 608–16.

Cf. Byrne, “Sinning,” who would add a nuance to “body” from an insight of Käsemann’s to the effect that the body is the tangible vehicle of communication between people.

This is the position of those who see the body here as representing the whole person. It may be profoundly true, but it simply is not Paul’s point.

See on 3:16; see esp. vv. 2, 3, 9, 15, and 16 in the present and preceding sections.

Gk. τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν. For the grammar see Turner, Syntax, 23–24; this reflects semitic preference for a distributive singular, where “something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular.” Cf. Rom. 8:23.

Probably “the temple,” another illustration of Colwell’s rule (see on 3:16).

On the possibility that this imagery is prompted by temple prostitution, see . Cf. Gundry, 76.

This is not demanded by the Greek text, but makes far better sense of it. See Findlay, 821; Barrett, 151.

Otherwise Kempthorne, “Incest,” 572–73; see the refutation in Gundry, 76.

Gk. ἐν ὑμῖν; in contrast to 3:16 this is distributive, referring to the Spirit in the life of each of them.

The Greek has simply οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ (“which you have from God”), but since the emphasis here is not on “possession” but source, the addition “received” is legitimate.

The sentence has an explanatory γάρ, omitted in the NIV.

Gk. ἀγοράζω. On the use of this verb in slave “buying” see the discussion by W. Elert, “Redemptio ab hostibus,” ThLZ 72 (1947), 267; see also the discussion in Bartchy, 124, n. 450. G. L. Klein notes the possible connection of the use of this verb with Hos. 3:1–3 (“Hos 3:1–3—Background to 1 Cor 6:19b–20?” CrisTR 3 [1989], 373–75).

Otherwise, Deissmann, LAE, 318–30, who argues that the imagery of sacral manumission of slaves, such as one finds at Delphi, is in view, thus emphasizing the “purchase for freedom” aspect of the metaphor. In this he has been followed by BDAG and others (e.g., Bailey, “Foundation,” 33–34), but this has been thoroughly refuted by Elert (see the preceding note) and others. For a overview of the discussion, see Bartchy, 121–25; cf. Conzelmann, 113.

Cf. D. H. Field, NIDNTT 1:267–68.

E.g., Conzelmann, 113. While it is true that the metaphor “is not developed,” it is too restricting to assert further “that the metaphor should not be pressed.” It is not a question of “pressing” a metaphor, but of recognizing what is inherent in the use of the metaphor in the first place.

Gk. δή; used with the imperative to strike a note of urgency. Cf. R-P, 129, “be sure to glorify.”

Gk. δοξάζω.

Gk. ἐν; more likely Paul intends “in your body,” that is, in the personal activities of the body. Cf. Parry, 107 (“the ἐν perhaps not strictly instrumental, but to mark the sphere of action”); Findlay, 822.

See .

This suggestion comes from Lightfoot (218).

↑ Back to top