Homily XVI.
Homily XVI.
1 Corinthians chapter 5, verse 9-1 Corinthians chapter 5, verse 11I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters, for then must ye needs go out of the world: but now I write unto you not to keep company, if any mad that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or a reviler, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
For since he had said, "Ye have not rather mourned, that such an one should be taken away;" and, "Purge out the old leaven; "and it was likely that they would surmise it to be their duty to avoid all fornicators: for if he that has sinned imparts some of his own mischief to those who have not sinned, much more is it meet to keep one's self away from those without: (for if one ought not to spare a friend on account of such mischief arising from him, much less any others;) and under this impression, it was probable that they would separate themselves from the fornicators among the Greeks also, and the matter thus turning out impossible, they would have taken it more to heart: he used this mode of correction, saying, "I wrote unto you to have no company with fornicators, yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world:" using the word "altogether,'' as if it were an acknowledged thing. For that they might not think that he charged not this upon them as being rather imperfect, and should attempt to do it under the erroneous impression that they were perfect, he shews that this were even impossible to be done, though they wished it ever so much. For it would be necessary to seek another world. Wherefore he added, "For ye must needs then go out of the world." Seest thou that he is no hard master, and that in his legislation he constantly regards not only what may be done, but also what may be easily done. For how is it possible, says he, for a man having care of a house and children, and engaged in the affairs of the city, or who is an artisan or a soldier, (the greater part of mankind being Greeks,) to avoid the unclean who are to be found every where? For by "the fornicators of the world," he means those who are among the Greeks. "But now I write unto you, If any brother" be of this kind, "with such an one no not to eat." Here also he glances at others who were living in wickedness.
But how can one "that is a brother" be an idolater? As was the case once in regard to the Samaritans who chose piety but by halves. And besides he is laying down his ground beforehand for the discourse concerning things offered in sacrifice to idols, which after this he intends to handle.
"Or covetous." For with these also he enters into conflict. Wherefore he said also, "Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?Nay, ye yourselves do wrong and defraud."
"Or a drunkard." For this also he lays to their charge further on; as when he says, "One is hungry and another is drunken:" and, "meats for the belly and the belly for meats."
"Or a reviler, or an extortioner:" for these too he had rebuked before.
[2.] Next he adds also the reason why he forbids them not to mix with heathens of that character, implying that it is not only impossible, but also superfluous.
Ver. 12, "For what have I to do with judging them that are without?" Calling the Christians and the Greeks, "those within" and "those without," as also he says elsewhere, (1 Timothy chapter 3, verse 7) "He must also have a good report of them that are without." And in the Epistle to the Thessalonians he speaks the same language, saying, (2 Thessalonians chapter 3, verse 14) "Have no intercourse with him to the end that he may be put to shame." And, "Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." Here, however, he does not add the reason. Why? Because in the other case he wished to soothe them, but in this, not so. For the fault in this case and in that was not the same, but in the Thessalonians it was less. For there he is reproving indolence; but here fornication and other most grievous sins. And if any one wished to go over to the Greeks, he hinders not him from eating with such persons; this too for the same reason. So also do we act; for our children and our brethren we leave nothing undone, but of strangers we do not make much account. How then? Did not Paul care for them that were without as well? Yes, he cared for them; but it was not till after they received the Gospel and he had made them subject to the doctrine of Christ, that he laid down laws for them. But so long as they despised, it was superfluous to speak the precepts of Christ to those who knew not Christ Himself.
"Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without, God judgeth?" For since he had said, "What have I to do with judging those without;" lest any one should think that these were left unpunished, there is another tribunal which he sets over them, and that a fearful one. And this he said, both to terrify those, and to console these; intimating also that this punishment which is for a season snatches them away from that which is undying and perpetual: which also he has plainly declared elsewhere, saying, (1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 32) "But now being judged, we are chastened, that we should not be condemned with the world."
[3.] "Put away from among yourselves the wicked person." He used an expression found in the Old Testament, (Deuteronomy chapter 17, verse 7) partly hinting that they too will be very great gainers, in being freed as it were from some grievous plague; and partly to shew that this kind of thing is no innovation, but even from the beginning it seemed good to the legislator that such as these should be cut off. But in that instance it was done with more severity, in this with more gentleness. On which account one might reasonably question, why in that case he conceded that the sinner should be severely punished and stoned, but in the present instance not so; rather he leads him to repentance. Why then were the lines drawn in the former instance one way and in the latter another? For these two causes: one, because these were led into a greater trial and needed greater long-suffering; the other and truer one, because these by their impunity were more easily to be corrected, coming as they might to repentance; but the others were likely to go on to greater wickedness. For if when they saw the first undergoing punishment they persisted in the same things, had none at all been punished, much more would this have been their feeling. For which reason in that dispensation death is immediately inflicted upon the adulterer and the manslayer; but in this, if through repentance they are absolved, they have escaped the punishment. However, both here one may see some instances of heavier punishment, and in the Old Testament some less severe, in order that it may be signified in every way that the covenants are akin to each other, and of one and the same lawgiver: and you may see the punishment following immediately both in that covenant and in this, and in both often after a long interval. Nay, and oftentimes not even after a long interval, repentance alone being taken as satisfaction by the Almighty. Thus in the Old Testament, David, who had committed adultery and murder, was saved by means of repentance; and in the New, Ananias, who withdrew but a small portion of the price of the land, perished together with his wife. Now if these instances are more frequent in the Old Testament, and those of the contrary kind in the New, the difference of the persons produces the difference in the treatment adopted in such matters.
[4.] C. vi. ver. 1. "Dare any one of you, having a matter against his brother, (ton adelfon, rec. text ton eteron.) go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?"
Here also he again makes his complaint upon acknowledged grounds; for in that other place he says, "It is actually reported that there is fornication among you." And in this place,"Dare any one of you?" From the very first outset giving signs of his anger, and implying that the thing spoken of comes of a daring and lawless spirit.
Now wherefore did he bring in by the way that discourse about covetousness and about the duty of not going to law without the Church? In fulfilment of his own rule. For it is a custom with him to set to right things as they fall in his way; just as when speaking about the tables which they used in common, he launched out into the discourse about the mysteries. So here, you see, since he had made mention of covetous brethren, burning with anxiety to correct those in sin, he brooks not exactly to observe order; but he again corrects the sin which had been introduced out of the regular course, and so returns to the former subject.
Let us hear then what he also says about this. "Dare any of you, having a matter, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?" For a while, he employs those personal terms to expose, discredit, and blame their proceedings: nor does he quite from the beginning subvert the custom of seeking judgment before the believers: but when he had stricken them down by many words, then he even takes away entirely all going to law. "For in the first place," says he, "if one must go to law it were wrong to do so before the unrighteous. But you ought not to go to law at all.'' This however he adds afterwards. For the present he thoroughly sifts the former subject, namely, that they should not submit matters to external arbitration. "For," says he, "how can it be othwise than absurd that one who is at variance (mikrofunta) with his friend should take his enemy to be a reconciler between them? And how can you avoid feeling shame and blushing when a Greek sits to judge a Christian? And if about private matters it is not right to go to law before Greeks, how shall we submit to their decisions about other things of greater importance?"
Observe, moreover, how he speaks. He says not, "Before the unbelievers," but, "Before the unrighteous;" using the expression of which he had most particular need for the matter before him, in order to deter and keep them away. For see that his discourse was about going to law, and those who are engaged in suits seek for nothing so much as that the judges should feel great interest about what is just; he takes this as a ground of dissuasion. all but saying, "Where are you going? What are you doing, O man, bringing on yourself the contrary to what you wish, and in order to obtain justice committing yourself to unjust men?" And because it would have been intolerable to be told at once not to go to law, he did not immediately add this, but only changed the judges, bringing the party engaged in the trial from without into the Church.
[5.] Then, since it seemed easily open to contempt, I mean our being judged by those who were within, and especially at that time, (for they were not perhaps competent to comprehend a point, nor were they such as the heathen judges, well skilled in laws and rhetoric, inasmuch as the greater part of them were uneducated men,) mark how he makes them worthy of credit, first calling them "Saints."
But seeing that this bore witness to purity of life, and not to accuracy in hearing a case, observe how he orderly handles this part also, saying thus, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" How then canst thou who art in thy day to judge them, endure to be judged by them now? They will not indeed judge, taking their seat in person and demanding account, yet they shall condemn. This at least he plainly said; "And if the world is judged in you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" He says not "by you," but "in you:" just as when He said, (St. Matthew chapter 12, verse 42) "The queen of the south shall rise up and condemn this generation:" and, "The men of Nineveh shall arise and condemn this generation." For when beholding the same sun and sharing all the same things, we shall be found believers but they unbelievers, they will not be able to take refuge in ignorance. For we shall accuse them, simply by the things which we have done. And many such ways of judgment one will find there.
Then, that no one should think he speaks about other persons, mark how he generalizes his speech. "And if the world is judged in you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"
The thing is a disgrace to you, he says, and an unspeakable reproach. For since it was likely that they would be out of countenance at being judged by those that were within; "nay," saith he, "on the contrary, the disgrace is when you are judged by those without: for those are the very small controversies, not these."
Ver. 3. "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things which pertain to this life?
Some say that here the priests are hinted at, but away with this. His speech is about demons. For had he been speaking about corrupt priests, he would have meant them above when he said, "the world is judged in you:" (for the Scripture is wont to call evil men also "The world:") and he would not have said the same thing twice, nor would he, as if he was saying something of greater consequence, have put it down afterwards. But he speaks concerning those angels about whom Christ saith, "Depart ye into the fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels." (St. Matthew chapter 25, verse 41) And Paul, "his angels fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness." (2 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 15) For when the very incorporeal powers shall be found inferior to us who are clothed with flesh, they shall suffer heavier punishment.
But if some should still contend that he speaks of priests, "What sort of priests?" let us ask. Those whose walk in life has been worldly, of course. In what sense then does he say, "We shall judge angels, much more things that relate to this life?" He mentions the angels, in contradistinction to "things relating to this life": likely enough; for they are removed from the need of these things, because of the superior excellence of their nature.
[6.] Ver. 4. "If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are of no account in the Church.
Wishing to instruct us as forcibly as possible that they ought not to commit themselves to those without, whatsoever the matter may be; having raised what seemed to be an objection, he answers it in the first instance. For what he says is something like this: Perhaps some one will say, "No one among you is wise, nor competent to pass sentence; all are contemptible." Now what follows? "Even though none be wise," says he, "I bid you entrust things to those who are of least weight."
Ver. 5. "But this I say to move you to shame." These are the words of one exposing their objection as being an idle pretext: and therefore he adds, "Is it so that there is not a wise man among you, no not even one?" Is the scarcity, says he, so great? so great the want of sensible persons among you? And what he subjoins strikes even still harder. For having said, "Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one?" he adds, "who shall be able to judge in the case of his brother." For when brother goes to law with brother, there is never any need of understanding and talent in the person who is mediating in the cause, the feeling and relationship contributing greatly to the settlement of such a quarrel.
"But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers." Do you observe with what effect he disparaged the judges at first by calling them unrighteous; whereas here, to move shame, he calls them Unbelievers? For surely it is extremely disgraceful if the priest could not be the author of reconciliation even among brethren, but recourse must be had to those without. So that when he said, "those who are of no account," his chief meaning was not (ou touto eipe rohgoumenwv.) that the Church's outcasts should be appointed as judges, but to find fault with them. For that it was proper to make reference to those who were able to decide, he has shewn by saying, "Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one?" And with great impressiveness he stops their mouths, and says, "Even though there were not a single wise man, the hearing ought to have been left to you who are unwise rather than that those without should judge." For what else can it be than absurd, that whereas on a quarrel arising in a house we call in no one from without and feel ashamed if news get abroad among strangers of what is going on within doors; where the Church is, the treasure of the unutterable Mysteries, there all things should be published without?
Ver. 6. "But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers."
The charge is twofold; both that he "goeth to law," and "before the unbelievers." For if even the thing by itself, To go to law with a brother, be a fault, to do it also before aliens, what pardon does it admit of?
[7.] Ver. 7. "Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another."
Do you see for what place he reserved this point? And how he has cleared the discussion of it in good time? For "I talk not yet," saith he, "which injures, or which is injured." Thus far, the act itself of going to law brings each party under his censure, and in that respect one is not at all better than another. But whether one go to law justly or unjustly, that is quite another subject. Say not then, "which did the wrong?" For on this ground I at once condemn thee, even for the act of going to law.
Now if being unable to bear a wrong-doer be a fault, what accusation can come up to the actual wrong? "Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"
Ver. 8. "Nay, ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."
Again, it is a twofold crime, perhaps even threefold or fourfold. One, not to know how to bear being wronged. Another, actually to do wrong. A third, to commit the settlement of these matters even unto the unjust. And yet a fourth, that it should be so done to a brother. For men's offences are not judged by the same rule, when they are committed against any chance person, and towards one's own member. For it must be a greater degree of recklessness to venture upon that. In the other case, the nature of the thing is alone trampled on; but in this, the quality of the person also.
[8.] Having thus, you see, abashed them from arguments on general principles, and before that, from the rewards proposed; he shuts up the exhortation with a threat, making his speech more peremptory, and saying thus, (ver. 9.) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, (ver. 10.) nor covetous, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." What sayest thou? When discoursing about covetous persons, have you brought in upon us so vast a crowd of lawless men? "Yes," says he, "but in doing this, I am not confusing my discourse, but going on in regular order." For as when discoursing about the unclean he made mention of all together; so again, on mentioning the covetous he brings forward all, thus making his rebukes familiar to those who have such things on their conscience. For the continual mention of the punishment laid up for others makes the reproof easy to be received, when it comes into conflict with our own sins. And so in the present instance he utters his threat, not at all as being conscious of their doing such things, nor as calling them to account, a thing which has special force to hold the hearer and keep him from starting off; namely, the discourse having no respect unto him, but being spoken indefinitely and so wounding his conscience secretly.
HOME 
TOP