I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators.

I have written to you in the epistle not to mix with fornicators;

I have written to you in this epistle, not to associate with persons guilty of lewdness:

I did write to you in the epistle, not to keep company with whoremongers,

I wrote to you in an letter not to company with fornicators:

I wrote to you in that letter that you were not to associate with fornicators;

In my letter I said to you that you were not to keep company with those who go after the desires of the flesh;

I told you, in my letter, not to associate with immoral people –

I wrote to you in an epistle. The epistle of which he speaks is not at this day extant. Nor is there any doubt that many others are lost. It is enough, however, that those have been preserved to us which the Lord foresaw would suffice. But this passage, in consequence of its obscurity, has been twisted to a variety of interpretations, which I do not think it necessary for me to take up time in setting aside, but will simply bring forward what appears to me to be its true meaning. He reminds the Corinthians of what he had already enjoined upon them -- that they should refrain from intercourse with the wicked. For the word rendered to keep company with, means to be on terms of familiarity with any one, and to be in habits of close intimacy with him. [1] Now, his reminding them of this tends to expose their remissness, inasmuch as they had been admonished, and yet had remained inactive. He adds an exception, that they may the better understand that this refers particularly to those that belong to the Church, as they did not require to be admonished [2] to avoid the society of the world. In short, then, he prohibits the Corinthians from holding intercourse with those who, while professing to be believers, do, nevertheless, live wickedly and to the dishonor of God. "Let all that wish to be reckoned brethren, either live holily and becomingly, or be excommunicated from the society of the pious, and let all the good refrain from intercourse and familiarity with them. It were superfluous to speak as to the openly wicked, for you ought of your own accord to shun them, without any admonition from me." This exception, however, increases the criminality of remissness, inasmuch as they cherished in the bosom of the Church an openly wicked person; for it is more disgraceful to neglect those of your own household than to neglect strangers.

Footnotes

1 - The original word, sunanamignusthai, literally means to be mixed up together with It is the rendering of the Septuagint for the Hebrew word ytvvll, in Hosea 7:8 Ephraim hath mixed himself among the people. -- Ed

2 - "Ce seroit vne chose superflue de les admonester," etc.; -- "It were a superfluous thing to admonish them," etc.

I wrote unto you - I have written ἔγραψα egrapsa. This word may either refer to this Epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them, but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word.
In an epistle - ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ en tē epistolē. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators suppose that this refers to the same Epistle (our 1-Corinthians), and that the apostle means to say that in the former part of this Epistle 1-Corinthians 5:2 he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that τῇ tē here is used for ταυτῇ tautē, and appeal to the kindred passages in Romans 16:2; Colossians 4:6; 1-Thessalonians 5:27; 2-Thessalonians 3:3-4. Many others - as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, etc. - suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This Epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, namely:
(1) It is the natural and obvious interpretation - one that would strike the great mass of people. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle.
(2) it is the very expression which he uses in 2-Corinthians 7:8, where he is referring to this Epistle as one which he had sent to them.
(3) it is not true that Paul had in any former part of this Epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have contact with them.
(4) it is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he labored many years; founded many churches; and had frequent occasion to write to them.
(5) we know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus, the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, etc., are referred to in the Old Testament, and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament.
(6) in 1-Corinthians 5:11, he expressly makes a distinction between the Epistle which he was then writing and the former one. "But now," that is, in this Epistle, "I have written (ἔγραψα egrapsa) to you," etc. an expression which he would not use if 1-Corinthians 5:9, referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction.
(7) this opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, "The Epistle of which he here speaks, is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful." If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply:
(a) That there is no evidence that these were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines, as inspired or uninspired (see 1 Cor. 7); and the same thing may have occurred in his writings.
(b) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless.
(c) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspiration - and then have been suffered to be lost - as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world.
(d) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even the Saviour himself John 21:25, have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed than that numerous discourses of him "who spake as never man spake," should be lost to the world?
(e) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved and is in our bands. That any inspired hooks have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost, and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed.
Not to company - Not to associate with; see Ephesians 5:11; 2-Thessalonians 3:14. This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now 1-Corinthians 5:11 proceeds to give, relates to a different matter - the proper degree of contact with those who were "in the church."

I wrote unto you in an epistle - The wisest and best skilled in Biblical criticism agree that the apostle does not refer to any other epistle than this; and that he speaks here of some general directions which he had given in the foregoing part of it; but which he had now in some measure changed and greatly strengthened, as we see from 1-Corinthians 5:11. The words εγραψα εν τῃ επιστολῃ may be translated, I Had written to you in This Epistle; for there are many instances in the New Testament where the aorist, which is here used, and which is a sort of indefinite tense, is used for the perfect and the plusquam-perfect. Dr. Whitby produces several proofs of this, and contends that the conclusion drawn by some, viz. that it refers to some epistle that is lost, is not legitimately drawn from any premises which either this text or antiquity affords. The principal evidence against this is 2-Corinthians 7:8, where εν τῃ επιστολῃ, the same words as above, appear to refer to this first epistle. Possibly the apostle may refer to an epistle which he had written though not sent; for, on receiving farther information from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, relative to the state of the Corinthian Church, he suppressed that, and wrote this, in which he considers the subject much more at large. See Dr. Lightfoot.
Not to company with fornicators - With which, as we have already seen, Corinth abounded. It was not only the grand sin, but staple, of the place.

(9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
(9) Now he speaks more generally: and that which he spoke before of the incestuous person he shows that it pertains to others, who are known to be wicked and those who through their wicked life are a slander to the Church, who ought also by lawful order be cast out of the community of the Church. And making mention of eating meals, either he means that feast of love at which the supper of the Lord was received, or else their common usage and manner of life. And this is to be properly understood, lest any man should think that either matrimony was broken by excommunication, or such duties hindered and cut off by it, as we owe one to another: children to their parents, subjects to their rulers, servants to their masters, and neighbour to neighbour, to win one another to God.

I wrote unto you in an epistle,..... Not in this same epistle, and in 1-Corinthians 5:2 as some think; for what is here observed is not written in either of those verses, but in some other epistle he had sent them before, as is clear from 1-Corinthians 5:11 which either came not to hand, or else was neglected by them; and so what he here says may be considered as a reproof to them, for taking no notice of his advice; but continuing to show respect to the incestuous person, though he in a former epistle had advised them to the contrary: no doubt the apostle wrote other epistles to the Corinthians, besides those that are in being; see 2-Corinthians 10:10 nor does such a supposition at all detract from the perfection of Scripture; for not all that were written by him were by divine inspiration; and as many as were so, and were necessary for the perfection of the canon of Scripture, and to instruct us in the whole counsel of God, have been preserved; nor is this any contradiction to this epistle's being his first to this church; for though it might not be his first to them, yet it is the first to them extant with us, and therefore so called: what he had written to them in another epistle was not
to company with fornicators; which he had not so fully explained, neither what fornicators he meant, nor what by keeping company with them; he therefore in this distinguishes upon the former, and enlarges his sense of the latter; declaring that they were not so much as to eat with such persons; which shows, that this prohibition does not regard unclean copulation, or a joining with them in the sin of fornication, they had been used to in a state of unregeneracy, for some sort of companying with fornicators is allowed of in the next verse; whereas no degree of a sinful mixture with them would ever be tolerated: but that it is to be understood of a civil society and familiar conversation with them; which might bring a reproach upon religion, be a stumbling to weak Christians, and be of dangerous consequence to themselves and others; who hereby might be allured and drawn by their example into the commission of the same sinful practices. The apostle seems to allude to the customs and usages of the Jews, who abstained from all civil commerce and familiar acquaintance with unbelievers. They say,
"that everyone that does not study in the law, , "it is forbidden to come near him, and to exercise merchandise with him, and much less to walk with him in the way", because there is no faith in him (m).''
(m) Zohar in Leviticus. fol. 33. 2.

Christians are to avoid familiar converse with all who disgrace the Christian name. Such are only fit companions for their brethren in sin, and to such company they should be left, whenever it is possible to do so. Alas, that there are many called Christians, whose conversation is more dangerous than that of heathens!

I wrote . . . in an epistle--rather, "in the Epistle": a former one not now extant. That Paul does not refer to the present letter is proved by the fact that no direction "not to company with fornicators" occurs in the previous part of it; also the words, "in an (or, the) epistle," could not have been added if he meant, "I have just written" (2-Corinthians 10:10). "His letters" (plural; not applying to merely one) confirm this. 2-Corinthians 7:8 also refers to our first Epistle, just as here a former letter is referred to by the same phrase. Paul probably wrote a former brief reply to inquiries of the Corinthians: our first Epistle, as it enters more fully into the same subject, has superseded the former, which the Holy Spirit did not design for the guidance of the Church in general, and which therefore has not been preserved. See my Introduction.

I wrote unto you in an epistle. He had written an earlier letter which has not been preserved, probably a short one, to which reference is made. So most commentators understand.
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world. His direction had been misunderstood. The fornicator in the church must be shunned as an outcast, for the sake of the discipline. This was what he meant. He did not give directions concerning their conduct towards the heathen.
Then must ye needs, etc. As the whole heathen world were addicted to the vices named, to apply the rule to it would require that the church have nought whatever to do with the unconverted.
Now I have written unto you, etc. He now writes and explains his meaning. Church members must not have social intercourse with one who has been a member who is guilty of the grievous sins named.
Covetous. A greedy person, under the influence of passions, not only greedy for gain, but for self-indulgence. The Greek word implies this.
With such a one, no, not to eat. Either at the Lord's table, or in friendly meals, which would imply a brotherly recognition.
For what have I to do, etc. It was not Paul's business, nor ours, to judge those without; hence the rule just given is not one to regulate our intercourse with them.
Do not ye judge them that are within? The authority of the church is over those who have been united with it. It can judge them.
Them that are without God judgeth. The unconverted are left in the hands of God. He will judge them according to their deeds. We are not to seek to inflict punishment on them by shunning them, but rather to go to them in the love of Christ to try to lead them to repentance.
Therefore put away, etc. A summary order to execute discipline upon the incestuous offender, an order that we know from the second letter was obeyed.

I wrote to you in a former epistle - And, doubtless, both St. Paul and the other apostles wrote many things which are not extant now. Not to converse - Familiarly; not to contract any intimacy or acquaintance with them, more than is absolutely necessary.