Ver. 10 gives the needful definition of the above injunction. οὐ πάντως is best understood as by Er. (non omnino), Cv. (neque in universum), Mr., Bt., Ed., ΕΙ., as not absolutely, not altogether, ov ne- gativing πάντως and making the inhibi- tion a qualified one: “1 didnot altogether forbid your holding intercourse with the fornicators of this world’”’. To make the πάντως emphasise the οὐ (as in Rom. iii. g)—‘‘Assuredly I did not mean to forbid association with fornicators outside the Church” (Lt.)—is to lend the pas- sage the air of recommending association with unconverted profligates!— What applies to one sort of immorality applies to others: ἢ τ. πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρπαξιν ἢ εἰδωλολάτραις, “or with the covetous and rapacious, or with idolaters”. The πλεονεκται (from πλέον and ἔχω: see parls.) are the self-aggrandising in general;
812
y Eph. i.2r, 2, τοῦ κά > - ae ή 9 ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν.
II. νυνὶ] δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ touvavapiy-
Mk.ili. 4 ψυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς 7 ὀνομαζόμενος 4 " πόρνος ἢ 'πλεονέκτης ἢ
Ζ Vi. 10;
per, iv. Yet8whoddtpys ἢ “Aotdopos ἢ *peOucos ἢ " ἅρπαξ, "τῷ Ρτοιούτῳ
12; 1 li. 23; -pta, I Tim. v.
"τοὺς °€ow ὑμεῖς κρίνετε 14 x1 Pet: B P :
μηδὲ "συνεσθίειν' 12. τί γάρ po καὶ
ἀτοὺς δὲ 3 ἔξω ὁ Θεὸς κρίνει; 13. καὶ
A 9 ” 2 τοὺς 3 ἔξω κρίνειν; οὐχὶ
3
iii.g; Prov. * ἐξαρεῖτε * τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.
XXVi. 21; Sir. xxiii. 8. a vi. 10; twice in Prov., and in Sir. xv. 2; Gen. xliii. 32; Ps. c. 5.
Lyuv, SSABDcGLP; Treg., W.H., Nestle.
20m. και α]ἱ unce. but DL. 3 Om. και αἱ unce. but D°L.
_ biSee ver: 5. ; ay d Col. iv. 5; 1 Th. iv. 12; Mk. iv. 11; Prol. to Sirach (εκτος). e Η.Ι.; cf.2 Cor. iv. 16; Rom. vii. 22; Eph. iii. 16.
ο Gal. ii. 12; Acts x. 41, xi. 3; Lk. ΓΝ.Τ. 4.1., Deut. xvii. 7, 12, xxiv. 7.
νυνι, ΟΡ"; Tisch.
4εξαρατε: all uncc. but D°L (εξαρειτε); see Deut. (parl.).
ἅρπαγες, those who seize with violence ; sins of greed are frequent in commercial cities. ‘‘Idolaters” (the first appearance of the word in literature: cf. notes on viii. « and x. το) included the entire pagan world; Cor. idolatry was specially associated with sensual sin.—éwet... Gpa κ.τ.λ., “since in that case’—the logical consequence of absolute non- intercourse—‘‘ you were bound to go out of the world!” — ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην ὠφείλετε ζητῆσαι (Thp.). One could not pursue any avocation at Cor. without daily contact with such sinners. ὠφείλετε, in the impf. tense of the unfulfilled con- dition (implied in ἄρα) ; for the omission, common with vbs. of this nature, of the av of contingency, see Wr., p. 382, and cf. Heb. ix. 26. For the principle im- plied—as against the cloister—see John
xvii. 14-Ig. Ver. 11. viv δὲ ἔγραψα, “But now I have written”—in contrast to the
Εγραψα ... ἐν τῇ ἐπιστ. of ver. 9: “If any one doubted the purport of the former letter, it shall be impossible to mistake my meaning now”. The logical (not temporal) sense of νῦν (or νυνί) is preferred by some interpreters: ‘But now—after this, as things now appear— (you must understand that) I wrote,” etc., this ἔγραψα thus repeating the former. Nvvi δὲ bears the like emphatic temporal sense in 2 Cor. viii. 11, Eph. ii. 13.---ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς dvopaldpevos, “if any one bearing the name of ὄγοίμεγ ”----- the point of the amended rule, which P. in writing before had apparently left to the common-sense of his readers, but is compelled to make explicit. So the μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι clearly signifies not to hold fraternal, friendly commerce with vicious men: cf. xv. 33. Such a one
may be “named,” but is not, ‘a brother ”’; cf. Rev. iii. 1.— Among the kinds of sinners proscribed P. now inserts the λοίδορος (see note on iv. 12), the “‘yailer,” “reviler”—the foul-mouthed abuser of others; and the µέθυσος, “ drunkard ”— a word bearing in earlier Gr. a comic sense, tipsy, afterwards seriously used (Lt.): these sins are companions; ¢f. vi. 1Ο.---τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν: “ with him that is such (I bid you) not even to eat”. The inf. is pr.—of usage, prac- tice; cf. Gal. ii. 12. ‘Eating together is a sign of friendliness; business trans- actions are not. If the ref. be restricted to Christian fellowship (se. the Agapé), the emphatic mot even is out of place” (Ed.). To forbid intercourse to this extent implies expulsion from the Church, and more; cf. 2 Thess. iii. 14 f. (milder treatment), Mt. xviii. 17. That it should be possible for an actual ‘idolater’’— not merely one who “sits in an idol’s house’’ (viii. το) as a place indifferent, or who still in some sort believes in its power (viii. 7)—to be in the Church is evidence of the laxity of Cor. Chris- tianity. That this was really the case, and that some Cor., perhaps of philo- sophical, semi- pantheistic tendencies, wished to combine the worship of the heathen temple with that of the Christian Church, appears likely from x. 14-22; the same syncretism is found in India now; cf. the case of Naaman, 2 Kings v. 17 f. Vv. 12, 13. tl γάρ por τοὺς ἔξω κ.τ.λ.; “For what business of mine is it (Quid mea refert ? Ον.) to judge those that are outside ? (Is it) not those within (that) you judge, while those without God judges?” By these questions P. justifies his ex- cluding the impure ἀδελφὸς dvopal. from the communion and social courtesies of