Calvin on 1 Corinthians 5:10

Status
Not open for further replies.

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
10. Since you would have required. It is as to this clause especially that interpreters are not agreed. For some say, “You must sooner quit Greece.” Ambrose, on the other hand, says, “You must rather die.” Erasmus turns it into the optative, as if Paul said, “Would that it were allowable for you to leave the world altogether; 296 but as you cannot do this, you must at least quit the society of those who falsely assume the name of Christians, and in the meantime exhibit in their lives the worst example.” Chrysostom’s exposition has more appearance of truth. According to him, the meaning is this: “When I command you to shun fornicators, I do not mean all such; otherwise you would require to go in quest of another world; for we must live among thorns so long as we sojourn on earth. This only do I require, that you do not keep company with fornicators, who wish to be regarded as brethren, lest you should seem by your sufferance to approve of their wickedness.” Thus the term world here, must be taken to mean the present life, as in John 17:15

I pray not, Father, that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest deliver them from the evil.

Against this exposition a question might be proposed by way of objection: “As Paul said this at a time when Christians were as yet mingled with heathens, and dispersed among them, what ought to be done now, when all have given themselves to Christ in name? For even in the present day we must go out of the world, if we would avoid the society of the wicked; and there are none that are strangers, when all take upon themselves Christ’s name, and are consecrated to him by baptism.” Should any one feel inclined to follow Chrysostom, he will find no difficulty in replying, to this effect: that Paul here took for granted what was true — that, where there is the power of excommunication, there is an easy remedy for effecting a separation between the good and the bad, if Churches do their duty. As to strangers, the Christians at Corinth had no jurisdiction, and they could not restrain their dissolute manner of life. Hence they must of necessity have quitted the world, if they wished to avoid the society of the wicked, whose vices they could not cure.

For my own part, as I do not willingly adopt interpretations which cannot be made to suit the words, otherwise than by twisting the words so as to suit them, I prefer one that is different from all these, taking the word rendered to go out as meaning to be separated, and the term world as meaning the pollutions of the world “What need have you of an injunction as to the children of this world, (Luke 16:8,) for having once for all renounced the world, it becomes you to stand aloof from their society; for the whole world lieth in the wicked one.” 297 (1 John 5:19.) If any one is not satisfied with this interpretation, here is still another that is probable: “I do not write to you in general terms, that you should shun the society of the fornicators of this world, though that you ought to do, without any admonition from me.” I prefer, however, the former; and I am not the first contriver of it, but, while it has been brought forward previously by others, I have adapted it more fully, if I mistake not, to Paul’s thread of discourse. There is, then, 298 a sort of intentional omission, when he says that he makes no mention of those that are without, inasmuch as the Corinthians ought to be already separated from them, that they may know that even at home 299 they required to maintain this discipline of avoiding the wicked.

Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Can anyone point me to a commentary that agrees with Calvin on this verse?

Chrysostom's is the view I have found everywhere else I have checked, but Calvin considers that to be "twisting words so as to suit them".
 
I don't think he's saying that necessarily every other interpretation constitutes a perverse twisting of the words. He spends sufficient time in the previous two paragraphs offering a tolerable presentation and defense of Chrysostom's take; he says it has the most "appearance of the truth."

My read is that he is fairly dismissive of most others (e.g. Ambrose, Erasmus, and others), and doesn't bother with an extensive refutation of any. He simply offers what seems the straightforward best to him.

There are two readings of opheilete (don't know if Calvin was aware of them), οφειλετε (PAI) and ωφειλετε (IAI), which preferring the latter Robertson describes as "really the conclusion of a second-class condition with the condition unexpressed." The infinitive (a timeless expression), εξελθειν to go out, completes the verbal idea. This appears to be the general consensus. Probably, even the present-tense expression (if original) expresses no less than the imperfect. Certainly, the Geneva Bible and later versions support this sense, and lean against Calvin.

Probably a case of Calvin nodding. I read him taking the present tense, and understanding the statement purely indicatively, "you are/have going/gone out," rather than conditional and contrary to fact: "if... then you must needs go out." He likes that he gets a reasonable and readable sense his way. Nothing wrong (per se) with daring to buck the trend. :2cents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top