^{page 568 note 1} Hurd, J. C. jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (S.P.C.K. 1965), p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 568 note 2} Op. cit. p. 165.

^{page 568 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 277 f. (though II Cor. xii. 21 should have been somewhere considered). There is however no reason to accept Hurd's suggestion here that the relationship may have been a ‘spiritual marriage’. This would make the severity of Paul's sentence on the man, I Cor. v. 5, still harder to explain, and the condemnation of physical immorality in our passage would not then apply even to the one case. The man was probably living as the de facto husband of his (widowed?) stepmother (the new Jerusalem Bible—Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966—misleads seriously in describing her as his mother-in-law, N.T. p. 297, n. 5a). They should not be regarded as actually married because such a union was quite illegal in Roman law—see J. Héring, I Cor. (Epworth Press, 1962), p. 34; but cf. A. Robertson and A. Plummer, I Cor. (T. and T. Clark, 1911), p. 96.

^{page 568 note 4} Hurd, op. cit. p. 86.

^{page 569 note 1} Edwards, T. C. (following Chrysostom), cited by Morris, L., I Cor. (Tyndale Press, 1958), p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 2} As translated by Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the N T. etc. (Chicago and Cambridge, 1957), p. 278.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 3} Cf. Best, E., One Body in Christ (S.P.C.K. 1965), p. 217, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 4} Like English, Greek does not distinguish masculine from feminine in the word ‘somebody’; so there is no need to decide in translation between ‘some man’ and ‘some woman’. Paul is not using a specifically feminine word, but (as a man) he implies a reference to women in general and to the stepmother in particular. Does ‘somebody’ suggest better than ‘someone’ the sexual overtones?

^{page 569 note 5} Allo, , Première Epitre aux Corinthiens (2ème éd.Paris: Gabalda, 1956), p. 141: ‘…dans l'esclavage d'une personne ou d'une chose quelconque’, p. 142. Cf. Morris: ‘under the sway of anyone or anything’ op. cit. p. 99).Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 6} In Kittel, G. (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the N.T. (Eerdmans, 1964), 11, 574 f.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 7} ‘Nous comprenons dès lors pourquoi I'Apôtre a commencé par dire, au v. 12, “Je ne me livrerai à la puissance de personne”.’ On vi. 15, op. cit. p. 145.

^{page 570 note 1} So Bultmann, R., Theology of the N.T. (S.C.M. Press, 1952), 1,233Google ScholarSchlatter, A., The Church in the N.T. Period (S.P.C.K. 1955), p. 184; J. Héring, op. cit. p. 35 Hurd, op. cit. p. 137. But differently, for example, T. Ling, The Significance of Satan (S.P.C.K. 1961), pp. 41 f. The Deuteronomic formula cited at V. 13 (see below on vi. 15–17) always implies death in Deuteronomy, except at xix. 19 depending on the circumstances (cf. the lex talionis in 21). Since to take one's father's wife is for-bidden at xxii. 30 (xxiii. 1), the formula was probably considered to apply to this sin as well; it has been explicit at xxii. 21, 22, 24. At any rate this sin specifically deserves death according to Lev. xx. II. At Lev. xviii. 29 (cf. 8) its punishment is expressed: ⋯ξολɛθρɛ⋯σονται. Cf. the ‘destruction’, őλɛθρον, expected for the incestuous man, I Cor. v. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 2} Cf. perhaps xv. 22, 24, 45 ff., 57; I Thess. iv. 14, 16; Rom. viii. 11; John v. 21, 25 ff., vi. 39 f., 54, xi. 25 ff. In a note on ‘Christ's Resurrection the Cause of Ours’, M. E. Dahl suggests that ‘whether or not this traditional view…has any reliable N.T. basis would repay detailed investigation’ (Dahl, , The Resurrection of the Body, S.C.M. Press, 1962, p. 97).Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 3} So construed by, for example, J. B. Lightfoot (see Robertson and Plummer, op. cit. p.98) and recently the Jerusalem Bible.

^{page 570 note 4} The compound ⋯ξαρθῇ is actually read in v. 2 by L. There are no other occurrences of ⋯ξα⋯ρω in the N.T. The actual LXX form of the verb in all the Deuteronomy passages is probably the future ⋯ξαρɛῑς, though A reads ⋯ξαρɛῑτɛ at xvii. 7, xix. 19 and xxiv. 7, and this form is read at I Cor. v. 13 by Dc L al Or ς, while ⁴⁶ reads the present imperative ⋯ξα⋯ρɛτɛ.

^{page 570 note 5} In favour of ἄρα (read by G P), with J. M. S. Baljon (see Robertson and Plummer, op. cit. p. 126) and J. Weiss (accenting ἄρα), followed by Héring, op. cit. p. 43.

^{page 570 note 6} Cf. Cullmann, O., The Early Church (S.C.M. Press, 1956), p. 172Google ScholarWhiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St Paul (Blackwell, 1964), p. 214: ‘Fornication is a “sin against the doctrine of the church”….’Google Scholar

^{page 571 note 1} V. 9. 10, II. vi. 9; and vi. 18.

^{page 571 note 2} V. I; cf. also vi. 13, 18 (which may in any case refer to the vice of 15 f.), vii. 2.

^{page 571 note 3} Does Paul regard this union in one flesh as ‘indissoluble’ in this life? If so this is why the obvious remedy of the man's renouncing the illicit liaison is not even considered. But cf. vii. 15.

^{page 571 note 4} With 18a cf. x. 14, ϕɛ⋯γɛτɛ ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ς ɛ⋯δωλολατρɛ⋯ας.

^{page 571 note 5} Moule, An Idiom-Book of N.T. Greek (2nd ed. Cambridge, 1959), pp. 196 f. It should be noted that he calls 18b ‘18a’ and 18c ‘18b’.

^{page 571 note 6} The word's classical meaning is ‘take part in prostitution’, but despite the usual interpretation of 15 f. it is generally given a wider sense here: ‘celui qui fornique’, Allo, op. cit. p. 147; ‘thefornicator’. Héring, op. cit. p. 43, and N.E.B.; ‘the immoral man’, Moffatt, R.S.V.The only other N.T. occurrence outside Rev. is at x. 8.

^{page 571 note 7} V. 9, 10, 11, vi. 9.

^{page 572 note 1} We might thus expect a present subjunctive instead of the aorist ποι⋯σῃ.But perhaps the Corin-thians sought to discount the sin by obscuring its continuous nature.

^{page 572 note 2} Evidently the case because Paul's condemnation is reserved for the man. He does not judge outsiders, v. 12.

^{page 572 note 3} Διασπ⋯μɛν τ⋯ μ⋯λη το⋯ χριστο⋯ (cf. τ⋯ μ⋯λη το⋯ χριστο⋯, I Cor. vi. 15) κα⋯ στασι⋯ʓομɛν πρ⋯ς τ⋯ σ⋯μα τ⋯ ἴδιον,…; Clement is protesting against division in the Corinthian church—a theme familiar from I Cor., to which he refers in xlvii.

^{page 572 note 4} Moule, op. cit. p. 121; Arndt and Gingrich, op. cit. sub ἴδιος, 2, p. 370.

^{page 572 note 5} It is ‘applied only to the Church…except in I Cor. vi. 19…’ (Robinson, J. A. T., The Body, S.C.M. Press, 1952, p. 76 n.). Cf. also O. Cullmann, op. cit. p. 169.Google Scholar

^{page 572 note 6} R. Bultmann, op. cit. 1, 195.

^{page 572 note 7} Cf. ‘Spiritual house’, I Pet. ii. 5. We do find individual Christians as ναοí in Ignatius, Eph. xv.3, but even he prefers the corporate idea, Eph. ix. 1, Mag. vii. 2 (for which see Arndt and Gingrich, op. cit. sub ναóς, Fin. p. 535). The individual concept is common in the Stoics and Philo, but because there the temple of God is never the community, it is doubtful if Paul's concept can have been influenced by them; cf. O. Michel in Kittel, op. cit. IV (1967), p. 886, n. 25. There is no need to decide whether Paul means the local church or the universal church; the local church is the universal church in the place (cf. Bultmann, op. cit. 1, 93 f.).

^{page 573 note 1} Héring explains its absence at iii. 16: ‘not only because “naos” is attributive, but also because it is a reflection of the Hebrew “construct state”’ (op. cit. p. 24).

^{page 573 note 2} T⋯ σώματα ὺμ⋯ν is actually read in 19, doubtless for this reason, by A²L 17 Copt Arm. But P. S. Minear seems to suggest that the singular may be due to the presence of the ‘body of Christ’ pattern of thought in the passage (Images of the Church in the N.T., Lutterworth, 1961, pp. 180–2). The plural is also found normally at Eph. v. 28.

But of course the singular here is usually taken distributively. J. H. Moulton and N. Turner (A Grammar of N.T. Greek, T. and T. Clark, 1963, III, 23 f.) allege two further Pauline examples of the distributive singular of σ⋯μα: II Cor. iv. 10, where Paul may be referring only to himself, and א Vulg have to read the plural for the plural interpretation; and Rom. viii. 23, where the meaning of τ⋯ν ⋯πολ⋯τρωσιν το⋯ σώματος ⋯μ⋯ν is at least disputed (cf. J. A. T. Robinson, op. cit. p. 30). C. K. Barrett (Romans, A. and C. Black, 1957, p. 167) rejects the meaning ‘the redemption of the Church’ on the ground that ‘the Church is never the body of us…’ But this may not be so certain.

^{page 573 note 3} Genitives dependent on σ⋯μα are used of members of the Body in the Ninth Similitude of Hermas: ⋯ν αùτ⋯ν…⋯νσ⋯μα, xiii. 7; ⋯ν σ⋯μα τ⋯ν κɛκαθαρμ⋯νων, xviii. 3. And cf. again I Clem. xlvi.7 (p. 572, n.3). If we consider the comparable word ⋯κκλσíα, Paul himself can write at once of π⋯σαι α⋯ ⋯κκλσíαι τῷν ⋯θνῷν and of αĩ ⋯κκλσíαι το⋯ χριτο⋯, Rom. xvi. 4, 16.

^{page 573 note 4} Punctuating with most English versions, following Westcott and Hort, Robertson and Plummer, op. cit. p. 129; against Nestlé, Allo, op. cit., Héring, op. cit., the Bible Societies' N.T. (1966).

^{page 573 note 5} The LXX background of the word δοξʓω, ‘glorify’, is significant. First, there is a close parallel to the idea of God's being ‘glorified’ in the church by the destruction of a member who fails to revere what is holy. Moses says that the Lord's oracle ‘I will be glorified (δοξασθησομαι)in the whole congregation’ has been fulfilled by the destruction of the irreverent sons of Aaron: Lev. x. 1–3.

There is also a significant passage where the compound παραδοξʓω is predicated of God as subject: Deut. xxviii. 58–63. No doubt the word originally meant nothing more than ‘lay unheard-of (inflictions) upon’ (Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., p. 1308), cf. G. Kittel's ‘do something unusual’ in Kittel, op. cit. 11, 255. But in view of the context, to later readers the word may have acquired some of the theological meaning of the simple δοξʓω. For we read that if the people of God will not obey all the words in this book, 58 (e.g. the law against incest, xxiii. 1, cf. p. 570, n.1) ‘the Lord will παραδοξσɛι your afflictions [59]…until he has destroyed [⋯ξολɛθρ⋯σ, cf. őλɛθρον, I Cor. v. 5, and p. 570, n. 1] you [61]… the Lord will take delight in destroying (⋯ξολɛθρɛ⋯σαι) you, and you will be removed (⋯ξαρθησɛοθɛ, cf. ⋯ξρατɛ I Cor. v. 13, and p. 570, n. 4) from the land… [63]’. Paul may well have read in παραδοξοσɛι a ‘paradoxical’ sense of ‘glorification’: and so God will be ‘glori-fied in the Body’ by himself paradoxically ‘glorifying’ the sinner in this terrible way.

A sin comparable to the incest of I Cor. v. 1 is associated with defilement of the Temple in Amos ii.7 f. LXX: ‘a son and his father have gone in to the same girl, to profane the name of their God, and tying together their clothes with cords they have made curtains near the altar…’ These LXX allusions (cf. also p. 570, n. 1) are the more significant if the recent suggestion of Miss J. Massingberd Ford is correct, that the Epistle was addressed mainly to Jewish Christians. She sees a Jewish setting in I Cor. v. 1–5, comparing the excommunications practised among the Essenes and at Qumran (Ford, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians or the First Epistle to the Hebrews’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXVIII, 1966, esp. pp. 414 f.).

^{page 574 note 1} Allo notes the aorist and takes it inceptively: ‘ils se mettent done une fois à glorifier Dieu…’ (op. cit. p. 150). And Morris: ‘Let there be no delay in obeying’ (op. cit. p. 105).