1 Corinthians 6:1

Here the apostle reproves them for going to law with one another before heathen judges for little matters; and therein blames all vexatious law-suits. In the previous chapter he had directed them to punish heinous sins among themselves by church-censures. Here he directs them to determine controversies with one another by church-counsel and advice, concerning which observe,

I. The fault he blames them for: it was going to law. Not but that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully. But, 1. Brother went to law with brother (Co1 6:6), one member of the church with another. The near relation could not preserve peace and good understanding. The bonds of fraternal love were broken through. And a brother offended, as Solomon says, is harder to be won than a strong city; their contentions are like the bars of a castle, Pro 18:19. Note, Christians should not contend with one another, for they are brethren. This, duly attended to, would prevent law-suits, and put an end to quarrels and litigations. 2. They brought the matter before the heathen magistrates: they went to law before the unjust, not before the saints (Co1 6:1), brought the controversy before unbelievers (Co1 6:6), and did not compose it among themselves, Christians and saints, at least in profession. This tended much to the reproach of Christianity. It published at once their folly and unpeaceableness; whereas they pretended to be the children of wisdom, and the followers of the Lamb, the meek and lowly Jesus, the prince of peace. And therefore, says the apostle, "Dare any of you, having a controversy with another, go to law, implead him, bring the matter to a hearing before the unjust?" Note, Christians should not dare to do any thing that tends to the reproach of their Christian name and profession. 3. Here is at least an intimation that they went to law for trivial matters, things of little value; for the apostle blames them that they did not suffer wrong rather than go to law (Co1 6:7), which must be understood of matters not very important. In matters of great damage to ourselves or families, we may use lawful means to right ourselves. We are not bound to sit down and suffer the injury tamely, without stirring for our own relief; but, in matters of small consequence, it is better to put up with the wrong. Christians should be of a forgiving temper. And it is more for their ease and honour to suffer small injuries and inconveniences than seem to be contentious.

II. He lays before them the aggravations of their fault: Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world (Co1 6:2), shall judge angels? Co1 6:3. And are they unworthy to judge the smallest matters, the things of this life? It was a dishonour to their Christian character, a forgetting of their real dignity, as saints, for them to carry little matters, about the things of life, before heathen magistrates. When they were to judge the world, nay, to judge, it is unaccountable that they could not determine little controversies among one another. By judging the world and angels, some think, is to be understood, their being assessors to Christ in the great judgment-day; it being said of our Saviour's disciples that they should at that day sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Mat 19:28. And elsewhere we read of our Lord's coming with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment on all, etc., Jde 1:14, Jde 1:15. He will come to judgment with all his saints, Th1 3:13. They themselves are indeed to be judged (see Mat 25:31-41), but they may first be acquitted, and then advanced to the bench, to approve and applaud the righteous judgment of Christ both on men and angels. In no other sense can they be judges. They are not partners in their Lord's commission, but they have the honour to sit by, and see his proceeding against the wicked world, and approve it. Others understand this judging of the world to be meant when the empire should become Christian. But it does not appear that the Corinthians had knowledge of the empire's becoming Christian; and, if they had, in what sense could Christian emperors be said to judge angels? Others understand it of their condemning the world by their faith and practice, and casting out evil angels by miraculous power, which was not confined to the first ages, nor to the apostles. The first sense seems to be most natural; and at the same time it gives the utmost force to the argument. "Shall Christians have the honour to sit with the sovereign Judge at the last day, whilst he passes judgment on sinful men and evil angels, and are they not worthy to judge of the trifles about which you contend before heathen magistrates? Cannot they make up your mutual differences? Why must you bring them before heathen judges? When you are to judge them, as it fit to appeal to their judicature? Must you, about the affairs of this life, set those to judge who are of no esteem in the church?" (so some read, and perhaps most properly, Co1 6:4), heathen magistrates, exouthenēmenous, the things that are not, Co1 1:28. "Must those be called in to judge in your controversies of whom you ought to entertain so low an opinion? Is this not shameful?" Co1 6:5. Some who read it as our translators make it an ironical speech: "If you have such controversies depending, set those to judge who are of least esteem among yourselves. The meanest of your own members are able surely to determine these disputes. Refer the matters in variance to any, rather than go to law about them before heathen judges. They are trifles not worth contending about, and may easily be decided, if you have first conquered your own spirits, and brought them into a truly Christian temper. Bear and forbear, and the men of meanest skill among you may end your quarrels. I speak it to your shame," Co1 6:5. Note, It is a shame that little quarrels should grow to such a head among Christians, that they cannot be determined by arbitration of the brethren.

III. He puts them on a method to remedy this fault. And this twofold: - 1. By referring it to some to make it up: "Is it so that there is no wise man among you, no one able to judge between his brethren? Co1 6:5. You who value yourselves so much upon your wisdom and knowledge, who are so puffed up upon your extraordinary gifts and endowments, is there none among you fit for this office, none that has wisdom enough to judge in these differences? Must brethren quarrel, and the heathen magistrate judge, in a church so famous as yours for knowledge and wisdom? It is a reproach to you that quarrels should run so high, and none of your wise men interpose to prevent them." Note, Christians should never engage in law-suits till all other remedies have been tried in vain. Prudent Christians should prevent, if possible, their disputes, and not courts of judicature decide them, especially in matters of no great importance. 2. By suffering wrong rather than taking this method to right themselves: It is utterly a fault among you to go to law in this matter: it is always a fault of one side to go to law, except in a case where the title is indeed dubious, and there is a friendly agreement of both parties to refer it to the judgment of those learned in the law to decide it. And this is referring it, rather than contending about it, which is the thing the apostle here seems chiefly to condemn: Should you not rather take wrong, rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Note, A Christian should rather put up with a little injury than tease himself, and provoke others, by a litigious contest. The peace of his own mind, and the calm of his neighbourhood, are more worth than victory in such a contest, or reclaiming his own right, especially when the quarrel must be decided by those who are enemies to religion. But the apostle tells them they were so far from bearing injuries that they actually did wrong, and defrauded, and that their brethren. Note, It is utterly a fault to wrong and defraud any; but it is an aggravation of this fault to defraud our Christian brethren. The ties of mutual love ought to be stronger between them than between others. And love worketh no ill to his neighbour, Rom 13:10. Those who love the brotherhood can never, under the influence of this principle, hurt or injure them.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ch. 1Co_6:1-11. The way to settle disputes in the Christian Church

1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another] The principle is here laid down which is to guide Christians in their lawsuits. Disputes about property are treated by the Apostle as matters of the most trifling import. To call in the unbelievers to settle the disputes of Christian brethren was an act of audacity almost inconceivable by the Apostle (1Co_6:1), and in marked contrast to the feeling prevalent in the Christian Church at its first foundation (Act_4:32). It were far better for a Christian to suffer the utmost wrong, than to bring such a reproach upon the name of Christ (1Co_6:7). The disputes of Christians were therefore settled by private arbitration, a custom which continued until Christianity was formally established as the religion of the Roman Empire. In the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, which were drawn up in the second or early in the third century, we find a provision that these private courts of arbitration should be held early in the week, that any disputes which might arise might be set right before the following Sunday. Such courts of arbitration have given place to the Christian courts of law, before which it often becomes necessary for a Christian to plead, lest violent or covetous men should dissolve the framework of society. Yet the principle of this passage should guide us still, of regarding mutual love as of more importance than ‘the things that pertain to this life,’ of preferring rather to suffer wrong than to appeal to the law, unless some more important matter is at stake than our individual loss or inconvenience.

and not before the saints] Cf. St Mat_18:17, where we have a precept of Jesus Christ concerning the settlement of differences in the Christian Church.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_6:1-8

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust?

On going to law

The Greeks were not only quarrelsome, but derived an excitement pleasant to their frivolous nature in going to law. The Christians seemed not to have discarded this taste. St. Paul has been telling them they have nothing to do with judging the heathen; he now proceeds to remind them that they ought not to be judged by them. How could he preach the superiority of Christianity if Christians had so little common sense, so little esprit de corps, that they must call in a heathen to settle their disputes for them? St. Pauls reasons are important.

I. The saints are destined to judge the world and angels. Shall they not then be considered fit to judge little worldly matters of life?

1. St. Paul meant that ultimately holy men will be at the head of affairs, acknowledged as the fittest to discern between right and wrong. We shrink from such a thought; not, indeed, that we are slow to pronounce judgment upon our fellow-men, but to do so officially, with definite results, seems too heavy a responsibility. But why? If we submit ourselves now to those who have knowledge of law we may well be content to be judged by the perfectly holy by and by.

2. If holiness shall eventually be supreme, it ought now to be regarded as competent to settle the petty disputes which arise among us (1Co_6:3). The future kingdom of God can only be perfect as its subjects carry into it characters tending towards perfection. The future is not to make us, but we the future. Earth is not heaven only because men decline to make it so. And as all possible differences in heaven will be adjusted by an all-reconciling authority, there ought to be among the heirs of heaven no going to law now.

3. A vast proportion of legal business is created by changes from which the future life is exempt: death, marriage, disasters, &c. It is often in the power of a lawyer to give a man advice which will save his conscience and bring comfort into a family instead of heart-burning and penury. If the legal mind deals with the reality of things, and tries to see what equity requires, and seeks to forward the well-being of men, then surely there is no profession with such opportunities of earning the beatitude of the peacemakers, none in which men may better be prepared for the higher requirements of a heavenly society in which some are made rulers over ten cities.

II. Is there not a wise man among yourselves? A wise man was the technical term for a judge in the Hebrew courts.

1. Among the Jews there was no distinction between Church and State. In the synagogue and by the eldership offenders were both tried and punished. The rabbis said, He who brings lawsuits of Israel before a heathen tribunal profanes the Name, and does homage to idolatry; for when our enemies are judges (Deu_32:31) it is a testimony to the superiority of their religion. This idea passed over from Judaism to Christianity. And even a century after Pauls time the rule of the Church was, Let not those who have disputes go to law before the civil powers, but let them by all means be reconciled by the elders of the Church, and let them readily yield to their decision. And as late as our own day we find an Arab sheikh complaining that Christian Copts come to him, a Mohammedan, to settle their disputes, and wont go and be settled by the priest out of the Gospels.

2. Did Paul, then, mean that such legal cases as are now tried in our civil courts should be settled by non-professional men? Did he foresee none of the great evils that have arisen wherever Church or State has not respected the province of the other? No one can suppose that this was his meaning. He taught men to submit themselves to the powers that then were, and he himself appealed to Caesar. He had no notion of subverting civil courts, but he would fain have deprived them of much of their practice. He thought it might be expected that Christians would never be so rancorous or covetous but that their disputes might be settled by private and friendly advice. Courts of law are necessary evils, which will be less and less patronised in proportion as Christian feeling and principle prevail.

3. This rebuke is applicable even to a community like our own, in which the courts of law are Christian. It is felt even by nations that if a dispute can be settled by arbitration this is the better way of getting justice done. Christian people may need legal advice; but when two Christians go to law in a spirit of rancour this only proves that their worldliness is stronger than their Christianity

4. But some one will say, All this is romance. Just as if the world could be regenerated by anything that is not apparently romantic! If a greater good is to be reached, it must be by some way that men have not tried before. And if any one says, But if there is to be no going to law, we must continually be losers, the reply of a Kincardineshire lawyer might suffice, Dont go to law if yielding does not cost you more than forty shillings in the pound. And from a different point of view St. Paul replies, Well, and what though you be losers? The kingdom you belong to is not meat and drink, but righteousness. If a man says, We must have some redress, when a man takes a coat we must summon him, or he will take our cloak next, St. Paul replies, It is quite probable that if you act as your Master did, you will be as ill off in this world as He was. But is that any reason why you should at once call Him your Master and refuse to obey His precepts and follow His example? St. Paul then shows no hesitation about pushing his doctrine to its consequences. He sees that the real cure of wrangling, of fraud, and of war is not litigation, but meekness and unselfishness. The worlds remedies have utterly failed. Law is necessary for restraining the expressions of a vicious nature, but is insufficient to remove the possibility of these expressions by healing the nature. This can only be done by the diffusion of unworldliness and unselfishness. And it is Christians who are responsible for diffusing this unworldly spirit.

Conclusion.

1. Those laws which are to be our sole rule when we are perfect cannot always be immediately applied now; but there must be a striving towards the perfect state in which there shall be no going to law.

2. Paul knows that the Christian conscience is with him when he declares that men should rather suffer wrong than bring reproach on the Christian name (1Co_6:9). And yet how little do men seem to take to heart the great fact that they are travelling forward to a state in which nothing uncongenial to the Spirit of Christ can possibly find place! (M. Dods, D. D.)

Law, going to

A sheep, separated from the flock, was overtaken by a storm. To shelter itself from the rain it crept into a thorny bush, and remained there until the rain had ceased. It had much trouble in getting rid of the thorns. It, however, brought it about after many efforts, and got out from the bush without being wet; but the poor creature lost almost all its wool. A like fate is his who seeks redress in law.

Why a Christian should not go to law with his brethren

I. It is to demean Christianity before the world, which teaches peace, forbearance, unity, love.

II. It is to cede to worldly men an opportunity of judging Christian character--the complainant as well as the defendant.

III. It is to deny the competency of the Church to adjust differences among its own members.

IV. It is to prefer law to equity.

V. It is totally opposed to the spirit of Christ. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The litigious spirit in the Church

This the apostle rebukes because--

I. The Church should decide itself the difficulties of its members. The saints shall judge the world, i.e., this earth shall be one day a kingdom of God.

1. We cannot tell how, but one day the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God, &c., and legislation become Christian. And more, a time is coming when statute law shall cease, and self-government supersede all outward or arbitrary law. That will be the reign of the saints. Let us examine the principles of this kingdom which is to be.

1. The supremacy of goodness. The word judge does not mean that the saints shall be assessors with Christ at the day of judgment, but that they shall rule the world as Gideon, &c., judged Israel. Successively have force, hereditary right, talent, wealth, been the aristocracies of the earth. But in that kingdom to come goodness shall be the only condition of supremacy.

2. The best shall rule. The apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, which is not to be taken literally; you lose your time in investigating theories about the restoration of the ten tribes, &c. The spirit of the passage means, and typically expresses, that in that kingdom the best shall rule.

3. That there each shall have his place according to his capacity (see 1Co_12:28). Each man took his position in the Church according to his gift. Here was a new principle. So in the kingdom to come we shall not have the anomalies which now prevail. Men are ministers now who are only fit to plough; men are hidden now in professions where there is no scope for their powers. But it shall all be altered there. These are the things that must be hereafter. And it is only in such a belief that human life becomes tolerable.

4. This is the future destiny of the Church. Are these principles, thou, to be altogather in abeyance now? In the highest spiritual matters the Church shall decide hereafter. Therefore, in questions now of earthly matters, Paul argues, the least esteemed among them should be able to decide. I speak to your shame; where are your boasted teachers? Can they not judge in a matter of paltry quarrel about property?

(1) Let us not, however, mistake the apostle. He did not mean to say that the Corinthians should have ecclesiastical instead of civil courts. The question here is not between ecclesiastical and civil, but between law and equity, litigation and arbitration. The difference between the worldly court of justice and the Christian court of arbitration is a difference of diametrical opposition. Law says, You shall have your rights; the spirit of the true Church says, Defraud not your neighbour of his. Law says, You must not be wronged: the Church says, It is better to suffer than to do wrong.

(2) And now, Can any principle but this heal the quarrels of the world? While one holds out as a matter of principle, the other appeals to law, and both are well assured of their rights, what must be the end? If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. Whereas if we were all Christianised, and ready to endure injuries, law would be needless--there would be no cry of my rights. You will say, perhaps, But if we bear, we shall be wronged. You forget if all felt thus there would be no wrong. There is no remedy for the worlds miseries but the cure of its selfishness. Men have attempted to produce a peaceful and just state of society by force, by law, by schemes of socialism, and all have failed, must fail. There remains, then, nothing but the Cross, the Spirit of Him who conquered the world by being the victim of its sin.

II. It contradicts the character of the kingdom of God. A true kingdom of Christ should be altogether free from persons of this character. His argument runs thus:--You ask me how quarrels are to be decided except by law; how the oppressed are to be freed from gross oppressors, except by an appeal to legal justice? I answer, the Church does not include such persons in the idea of its existence at all. The Church consists of men washed, sanctified, justified, &c. I cannot tell you how to legislate for drunkards, revilers, &c., for such ought not to be in your society at all. This is what you were as heathens; this is not what you are to be as Christians. St. Paul insists on mans dignity. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

Litigation among Christians: evil of

I. It degrades Christian character.

1. By subjecting it to an earthly tribunal.

2. By denying the competence of Christian men to judge in the smallest matters.

3. By ignoring the dignity which Christ has conferred upon His saints.

4. By putting Christs cause to shame before unbelievers.

II. It indicates a selfish and unchristian spirit. Litigation

1. Would often be spared by concession, by a little sacrifice of personal right, although this must have its limits.

2. Is usually occasioned by a selfish desire to overreach another; which--

(1) Is opposed to brotherly love.

(2) Excludes a man from the kingdom of God.

(3) Makes the grace of Christ of none effect. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Litigation among Christians to be avoided

I. Why? Because it is inconsistent with--

1. Their profession (1Co_6:1).

2. Their dignity (1Co_6:2-3).

3. Self-respect (1Co_6:2-3).

II. How? (1Co_6:4-6).

1. By not appealing to a worldly tribunal; this occasions reproach.

2. By referring the matter to Christian brethren; that will bring honour.

3. By abstaining from open strife.

III. In what spirit? The spirit of love, which--

1. Excludes selfishness.

2. Prefers patient sacrifice to contention.

3. Gives no just occasion of offence.

IV. On what grounds? (1Co_6:9-11). Because every act of unrighteousness

1. Must exclude a man from the kingdom of God.

2. Encourages self-deception.

3. Is totally opposed to all Christian experience. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Litigation to be avoided

A very learned judge was once asked what he would do if a man owed him ten pounds and refused to pay. His reply was worth remembering. He said, Rather than bring an action against him, with its costs and uncertainty, I would give him a receipt in full of all demands; yes, and I would send him five pounds over, to cover all possible expenses.

Litigation to be avoided

Lord Erskine, when at the bar, and at the time when his professional talents were most eminent and popular, having been applied to by his friend Dr. Parr for his opinion upon a subject likely to be litigated by him, after recommending the doctor to accommodate the difference amicably, concluded his letter by observing, I can scarcely figure to myself a situation in which a lawsuit is not, if possible, to be avoided.

A lawsuit discouraged

Dr. Miner, of Trenton, N.J., who was formerly a pastor at Springfield, relates that when Abraham Lincoln was practising law in that city a farmer went to him to secure his services in a lawsuit pending between himself and a neighbour. Lincoln said, Now if you go on with this it will cost both of you your farms, and will entail an enmity that will last for generations, and perhaps lead to murder. The other man has just been here to engage me. Now I want you two to sit down in my office while I am gone to dinner, and talk it over and try to settle it. And to secure you from any interruption I will lock the door. He did so, and he did not return all the afternoon. The two men, finding themselves imprisoned, burst out laughing, and being thus put in good humour, came to a settlement before Mr. Lincoln returned. The example may be commended to the attention of Christians.

Lawsuits prevented

Mr. Oatts remarks: Peter the Great frequently visited the magistrates in the various cities of his vast empire without giving them any previous warning of his intention. Having in this way arrived at the city of Olonez, he went first to the governor and inquired of him how many suits were pending in the Court of Chancery. None, sire, was the reply. What! none? How does that happen? Sire, I endeavour to prevent lawsuits, and to conciliate the parties. I act in such a way that no traces of quarrels remain on the archives. If I be wrong your indulgence will excuse me. Wrong! No. I wish, exclaimed the Czar, that all governors would act on your principle. Go on as you are doing. God and your sovereign are both satisfied. The work of every child of God should be that of a peacemaker, reconciling man to God, and man to his fellow man.

Do ye not know that the saints shall Judge the world?--

The world judged by the saints

The apostle condemns their going to law, and would have them cease their quarrels one against another before the unjust and unbelievers, and that by four arguments. First, by the shamefulness of it (1Co_6:5). I speak it to your shame. Are you such fools that you cannot take up these matters among yourselves? Secondly, from the scandalousness of it. It is a thing so scandalous and offensive to those that are without that I wonder any of you dare be so bold as to go to law one with another. What will the world think? What! Are these the men that profess the gospel? Are these they that have the wisdom of God in them and that are led by the Spirit of God? Thirdly, from the unseemliness of it in the second verse. Do you not know that the saints shall judge the earth? What! hath God made you judges of the world, and do you go to be judged by the world? Fourthly, from the strangeness of it. Dare any of you? What! is there never a wise Christian amongst you? never an understanding professor, that is able to take up a controversy, or judge between his brethren? What a strange thing this is! Then he backs it with four arguments.

1. Because they were brethren (1Co_6:6).

2. Because it was about things of this life. What! hath God made you judges of heavenly things, of angels, and are you unfit to judge of the things of this life?

3. It was about small matters (1Co_6:2), whereas you shall sit upon men and angels, and the weightiest matters in the world, the greatest things of Gods law, judging them.

4. And lastly, because it was about such things as the meanest Christian in the town might have taken up and have ended: set up them that are least esteemed. Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? The doctrine is, that the saints shall judge the world. It is an old truth, yea, as old as the world itself: you may read it in the fourth verse of Judes epistle. That Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints. God will not only come to judgment Himself, but He will come attended with all His saints, even with all the godly, to execute vengeance upon all the world, so our Saviour told St. Peter (Mat_9:18). How shall the saints judge the world? Not by pronouncing of judgment upon the world, for that Christ only shall do.

But the saints shall judge the world these four ways.

1. They shall judge the world by their consent unto Christs judgment. God trains up His children in this world and teacheth them how they may judge the world hereafter; He teacheth them in this life how to assent with His proceedings in the world, so that they are able to say, Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and just are Thy judgments (Psa_119:137). Now the law saith that consenters are agents, and therefore because the saints shall consent to the judgment of Christ, therefore they are said to judge the world.

2. The saints shall judge the world by their applause of Christs judgment; they shall not only give consent unto the judgment of Christ, but they shall also commend it. They shall sing, Hallelujah, salvation, and honour, and power, be to the Lord our God, for true and righteous are His judgments (Rev_19:1-2). Let the wicked go accursed as they are, for it is a righteous sentence passed on them.

3. They shall judge the world by their majesty. Then shall the righteous shine as the stars in the firmament, and the wicked shall be astonished at the sight of them.

4. They shall judge the world by their lives and conversation. Then is the world judged by them when as the courses and manners of the world are not found upon them.

Their faith shall judge the worlds infidelity; their repentance shall judge the worlds impenitency; their accepting of the Lord Jesus shall judge their rejection and neglect of Christ Jesus; their zeal shall judge the worlds lukewarmness, and their holiness shall judge the worlds profaneness.

1. Because of the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His saints. He is the Head and they are His members. Now that which the head doth we ascribe it to the whole body. Secondly, in regard of compassion. I speak not of pity bait of compassion, of suffering with Christ, seeing that Christ was reproached, hated, and condemned by the world, the saints are likewise with Him; seeing they partake of the afflictions of Christ here they shall also be made partakers with Christ in His glory. Thirdly, for great terror to all wicked men at the day of judgment; for as it is with a thief, not only when the judge shall command to hang him, but all the justices and all the country shall cry out, Hang him! he is judged the more terribly. Fourthly, the saints shall judge the world because God shall so convince them that their mouth shall be stopped, they shall have never a syllable to excuse themselves withal when they shall see men as themselves are, that have lived in the same town, enjoyed the same ordinances of God, lived in the same family that did partake of the same blessings and of the same crosses and afflictions with themselves, subject also to the same corruptions and sins as themselves, when they shall see these at Christs right hand. The first use, then, is for instruction, whereby we may learn that the saints by their now being saints do now judge the world (Heb_11:7). Secondly, this teacheth us that when there is one sinner converted from the wickedness of his ways, and is become a saint, then all the world may know that there is a new judge come to sit upon them. It may be God hath converted thy brother and sister, and thou art not converted, thy own brother and sister shall condemn thee if thou do not repent and come out of thy sins. Thirdly, we may learn that it concerns all the world to take notice of every grace in Gods children. There is never a grace of God in any of His saints, but it shall condemn the world if it be void of it. The ways of the Lord are all judgments, because they judge them that will not walk in them. You may know a crooked thing by laying it to a straight line, and by that it is judged to be crooked. Is the child of God humble? His humility shall judge thy pride. Is the child of God meek and patient in suffering wrong and injuries? His meekness and patience shall judge thy revenge. Hath the child of God the spirit of prayer given him? It shall condemn thee that prayest only with thine own spirit. Doth his speech and communication administer grace to the hearers? It shall condemn thee that speakest of vain and idle things. Fourthly, learn hence, that all the texts of Scripture, all the whole Word of God, that is it that begets these saints; and therefore they must needs judge the world. The Scriptures are called judgments (Psa_105:5), and our Saviour saith, The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge you in the last day (Joh_12:48). Fifthly and lastly, hence it follows, that all the ministers of the Word of God shall also judge the world. Son of man, wilt thou judge the bloody city? Yea, thou shalt show her all her abominations (Eze_22:2). This, then, serves to condemn three sorts of men in the world. First, all those that despise the saints, and that see not amiableness in their faces. All the country doth reverence the face of the judge when he rides his circuit.

2. Shall the saints judge the world? Then what fools are the wicked that prepare not for these judges! When the judge comes to an assize all men prepare for him. Lastly, it condemns all those who do not see glory and majesty in the faces of Gods saints. There is majesty in the face of a judge; yea, a man may discover in them a kind of sovereign majesty.

Surely the wicked shall never escape condemnation, for--

1. God the Father, who judgeth by way of authority, He will condemn thee; all judgment cometh originally from Him.

2. God the Son, He will judge thee, who judgeth by way of dispensation (Act_10:1-48.). First, Christ preacheth to thee repentance and remission of sins, to which if thou yield not, then know that there is a day appointed wherein He will judge thee.

3. God the Holy Ghost will judge thee; that Spirit that now thrives with thee.

4. The Word of God shall judge thee, and that by way of form, it being the platform according unto which Christ will judge the whole world. There is never a text throughout the whole Scripture that commands you to leave and forsake your sins, but it shall judge you if you do not.

5. All the ministers of God shall sit as justices in common, from the first preacher of righteousness unto the last; Moses shall judge thee. Joshua, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Daniel, Paul, Peter, &c., they shall judge you. There will be no way for the wicked to put off their judgment; then the sons of Eli shall have none to advocate between God and them, none to cloak their wickedness. Would they send out excuses? The saints shall cut them off. Would they in the first place say, Alas! I was ignorant, I knew not how to pray, or to read, or to meditate on the Scriptures, nor to catechise my family? A second excuse is poverty. I have no means to live on; if I should run after sermons I should beg my bread. Thirdly, they shall have no excuse by employment. I am a servant, I am commanded to do this or that, I find so much business to follow that I cannot find any time for such things. Fourthly, they shall have no excuse from their callings and trades. I am an innkeeper, and if I should not suffer drinking and swearing and gaming I should not live. Another faith: I am a tradesman, and if I should ask at first just so much as I could take, I should never bring customers to my price, and so I should not live of my trade. Fifthly, they shall have no excuse from the times they live in. Alas (saith one)! I live in wretched times, all the world is given to sin. This, then, first condemns all unholiness in the lives of them that be saints. Beloved, if we did but live like the saints of God in holiness and purity the Lord would put such splendour upon us that would even daunt the very face of our enemies and make them stand amazed at saints. Secondly, this condemns the little difference that is betwixt the wicked of the world and some saints in their lives and manners. Beloved, is there so little difference between the judge and the prisoners that any one need to come and say, I pray you, sir, show me which is the judge and which is the malefactor? Thirdly, it condemns the scandalousness of many professors in their behaviours and actions. (W. Fenners.)

Judgment given to the saints

The apostle seems to refer to something in Christian doctrine well known then, but very obscure now. He asks with a tone of surprise, Do not ye know? We always look forward to being judged, not to judging others, and if the words stood alone, indeed, we might think that they only spoke of judging in the sense of condemning by contrast or example, as the men of Nineveh the generation in Which Christ lived. But this reference to future judgment does not stand alone (see Dan_7:22; Mat_19:28; Rev_20:4; Rev_2:26). Looking to all that is said about the judgment to come, I suppose that Christians will first be judged according to the new nature of which they have been made partakers, and the new light which has been accorded to them; that afterwards the heathen world, according to other standards and other necessities; and that in this judgment the saints will bear a part. Now, if it be so, does it not anticipate a frequent difficulty, the eternal fate of the heathen? Know this, thou shalt be consulted concerning these very heathen, if only thou be found worthy as a Christian. Only live as it becometh saints, and no sentence shall be passed without thy consent, or contrary to thy sense of justice, for the saints shall judge the world. The saints are also to judge angels, bad angels; for it does not appear how the others would be liable to any judgment at all. If it be asked why this should be so, it may be replied that their probation and fate has ever been mixed up with our own. In the days of our Lord they found a solace and a certain fierce joy in possessing themselves of the bodies of men, and only abandoned them at His almighty word. And these are now finally cast down to Tartarus and reserved under chains of darkness for the judgment of the last day. Contemplating their long connection in guilt and degradation with us children of men, shall we wonder if their final sentence also shall not be passed without us? (R. Winterbotham, M. A.)

Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another.--

Christian faultiness

The word may mean--

1. A moral defeat sustained by the Christian soldier in his campaign and spiritual march for the heavenly prize of the kingly crown and judicial throne.

2. The loss or damage to the Church, more litigant than militant in the eyes of observant heathendom. (Canon Evans.)

Lawsuits among Christians

indicate a want of--

1. Brotherly love.

2. Christian sacrifice.

3. Christian morality. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Why do ye not rather take wrong?--

A true Christian may not always insist on his own right

I. It may indicate a want of Christian love.

1. This is evident where brethren sue each other.

2. Even the party wronged should rather yield than encourage strife and hatred.

3. To press his cause before the world is to dishonour Christ.

II. It is the first step to actual sin.

1. It breeds selfishness, wrong, fraud.

2. And that among brethren. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 6:1-6. The apostle, having mentioned one very great irregularity among the professors of Christianity at Corinth, proceeds now to animadvert upon another, namely, their entering into suits of law with each other in heathen courts: Dare any of you — Have you so little regard for the glory of God, and the credit of Christianity, that, having a matter against another — Any controversy about civil affairs; you go to law before the unjust — Heathen judges, who generally were very corrupt, and from whom a Christian could expect no justice: and not before the saints — Who might easily decide these smaller differences in a private and friendly manner. Do ye not know — This expression occurs six times in this single chapter, and that with a peculiar force: for the Corinthians knew, and gloried in their knowledge, but their conduct was not consistent therewith. That the saints — After having been judged themselves; shall judge the world — Shall be assessors with Christ in the judgment wherein he shall condemn all the wicked, as well angels as men, Mat 19:28; Rev 20:4. And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy — Unfit, unable for such a work; to judge the smallest matters — Differences about worldly affairs, which are of small moment, in comparison of spiritual and heavenly matters. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? — Namely, evil angels: as Christ is their judge, we shall be honoured to join with him in that judgment also, when all his enemies shall be put under his feet and ours. How much more are ye fit to decide in these low and transitory secular affairs? If then ye have judgments — Differences to be decided; of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church — Even the weakest among you might be adequate to that work, and certainly fitter for it than unjust heathen. I speak to your shame — To make you ashamed of your proceedings. The apostle certainly did not seriously design that they should set persons to judge in these matters, (though of little importance, in comparison of spiritual things,) who were the weakest and of least esteem among them, as appears from the next clause; but he spoke ironically. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you — Among you who are such admirers of wisdom, who is wise enough to decide in such causes? Not one able to judge between his brethren — In those disputes which they have about earthly things? But brother goeth to law with brother — One Christian with another; and that before the unbelievers — To the great discredit of the Christian name; yea, to the scandal of the whole Christian institution; for they cannot but take occasion, from your mutual quarrels and accusations, to brand the whole body of you as injurious and avaricious; who, while you pretend to be so far superior to secular views, are yet so strongly attached to them, that, with all your professions of universal benevolence and brotherly love, you cannot forbear wronging one another.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(c) 6:1-11. Christians and Litigation

St. Paul reproves the Corinthians for referring their disputes about ordinary affairs to heathen judges. The subject was suggested by rumours he had heard; and the mention of 'judgment' in 1Co_6:13 of the previous chapter prompted its treatment at this stage.

1-6. Paraphrase. 'How is it that when you quarrel with one another you go before heathen judges and do not let some of the brethren decide your matter? (2) You spoke of the saints judging the world, why not allow them to settle these trifles? (3) You spoke of Christians as looking to sit in judgment on angels; why not then let them deal with the ordinary affairs of life? (4) And if you must have these things settled formally, make umpires of unimportant Church members rather than heathen. (5) I write thus to make you ashamed. Is there really no wise man among you who can be trusted to judge between his brethren, (6) and to prevent this unseemly practice of calling in unbelievers to settle your disputes?'

1. Dare any of you] Such action was antagonistic to the Christian spirit. The unjust] RV 'the unrighteous,' i.e. the heathen. The name is used in irony for 'unbelievers' (1Co_6:6). 'Do you call the heathen unjust, and yet dare to go to them alone for justice?' Saints] i.e. Christians.

2. That the saints shall judge the world] This v. and the two following vv. are written sarcastically. They appeal to the 'knowledge' of the Corinthians, and it is probable that they were suggested by expressions in the letter sent by the Corinthians to St. Paul. They were puffed up with spiritual pride (1Co_5:2), and in their conceit and vanity had spoken of their hope to judge both men (1Co_5:12; 1Co_6:2) and angels (1Co_6:3). If this be their expectation, says the Apostle, surely they are capable, even the meanest of them, of judging in matters of daily life. To take these expressions, about the saints judging the world and angeis. seriously, is to miss the point of the Apostle's argument. Besides, he has already said that the Christians (both he and they) had nothing to do with judging the world, which was God's part (1Co_5:12-13). (See Ramsay, 'Hist. Com. on Corinthians,' in 'Expositor,' VI. 4, p. 278.)

6. Before the unbelievers] The Corinthian converts referred their disputes about matters of daily life, such as 'prices and ownership' (Ramsay), to heathen judges or arbitrators. St. Paul urges them, if quarrel they must, to choose arbitrators from among the brethren.

7-11. Paraphrase. 'But the fault lies deeper than this, for you should have no such disputes at all. Far better be wronged and defrauded (8) than wrong and defraud your brethren. (9, 10) After all, in the end the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And who are the unrighteous but the unchaste, the greedy, the drunken, and the extortionate, none of whom have any part in that kingdom? (11) Such indeed were some of you Corinthians; but since your baptism you have professed that you are seeking to become pure and holy through the influence of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit.'

7. There is utterly a fault] RV 'Already it is altogether a defect in you.' St. Paul here ceases to employ raillery, the weapon he has used so effectively in the previous vv., and remonstrates with them in the most serious fashion. The real fault was not in going to heathen judges to get their disputes arranged, but in having occasion to call in any one at all.

9. Shall not inherit the kingdom] i.e. have no share in its present privileges and future blessings. The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom (Joh_18:36); its blessings and privileges are spiritual; how then could such unspiritual men as those enumerated, whose conduct tended to harden the heart and dull the spiritual insight, have any part in it? cp. Act_8:21.

11. Ye are washed] RM 'ye washed yourselves,' i.e. submitted to baptism as the sign of the washing away of your sin.

Sanctified] set apart, dedicated to God's service. Justified] accepted as righteous.

In the name of the Lord] i.e. through spiritual union with Him and continual submission to His influence.

(d) 6:12-20. The Obligation of Purity

The Corinthians seemed to have claimed that they were free to satisfy all bodily desires now that the gospel had set them free from the association of eating with idolatry.

St. Paul points out, first, that there are qualifications of this freedom even in things that are morally indifferent, and then that fornication is not one of these things. The subject arises naturally out of what he has said in 1Co_6:9, 1Co_6:10.

12-20. Paraphrase. 'It is true as you suggest that “all things are lawful” but this is not an absolute but a relative principle. You must not argue that the existence of appetites proves the lawfulness of their gratification: you must take care that what is lawful is also wise, and that appetite does not make you its slave. (13, 14) Both food and the organ which digests it are perishable. But the body has an eternal element, and unchastity harms that eternal element, designed as it is for the service of Christ and participation in the Resurrection. (15-17) You know that your bodies partake in the mystic union that exists between Christ and His people. How shameful is it, therefore, to violate this union by acts of immorality. Such acts cause a carnal union between those who participate in them, just as Scripture speaks of husband and wife being "one flesh": whereas the Christian is united to Christ in a spiritual union. And the immoral union is destructive of the spiritual union. (18, 19) Therefore keep yourselves unspotted by this sin; for there is none that defiles the body like this and makes it unfit for the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit. (20) Remember that you are not your own possession; you have been purchased by Christ who has given His life for you; therefore, see that you honour Him by consecrating your very bodies to His service.'

12. All things are lawful] cp. 1Co_10:23. St. Paul seems to have stated this as a principle in regard to the use of certain kinds of food (e.g. meats offered to idols, 1Co_10:25, 1Co_10:27), and the Corinthians had applied it generally to sensual indulgences. The Apostles, therefore, while still asserting the principle, points out two qualifications of it; (a) that what is lawful should also be beneficial, and (b) that no one should become a slave even to a lawful habit. We shall best understand the principle and its application if we think of it in relation to some such modern practice as, e.g., the use of strong drink.

13. Meats] An instance of things indifferent: cp. 1 Corinthians 8-10, where this matter is treated at length. St. Paul grants liberty in respect of meats; but the liberty does not excuse violating another man's conscience or becoming a slave to gluttony. Now the body is not, etc.] The Corinthians regarded the use of food and fornication as exactly on the same level, as both satisfying appetites: they held that the existence of bodily appetites justified their gratification. St. Paul, on the contrary, draws a sharp line of distinction between these two things.

14. Will also raise up us] St. Paul's argument in the whole passage is based on his view of the Resurrection which he explained in 1 Corinthians 15 : see esp. 1Co_15:35-53. Man's body is eternal; death and the grave do not destroy but purify and change it, as the earth removes the husk and glorifies the corn cast into it.

16. Saith he] i.e. God in Scripture (Gen_2:24).

One flesh] The words spoken first of marriage are applied here to an unholy union. St. Paul does not place the two on the same plane, but only points out that in this one respect they are similar.

17. One spirit] i.e. he shares in the life of the Lord: cp. Joh_15:4, Joh_15:5.

18. Without the body] i.e. outside it; do not affect its spiritual nature and destiny in the same way as this sin. Sinneth against his own body] see on 1Co_6:14.

19. The temple] i.e. the shrine wherein He dwells: cp. 1Co_3:16; 2Co_6:16.

Ye are not your own] The best of all reasons for not defiling the body.

20. Bought with a price] Christ has given Himself for you, and you are His; yea, God has given Christ for you, and you belong to God through Him.

Glorify God in your body] RV omits the rest. St. Paul is dwelling on the necessity of bodily purity, and appropriately concludes with this appeal.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PAUL’S SECOND RESPONSE:—TO THE RUMOUR OF BROTHER GOING TO LAW WITH BROTHER, 1Co_6:1-20.

a. The presumption of humbling Christianity before heathendom, 1Co_6:1-8.

The assertion of the last chapter is, positively, that the Church is judge within itself of its own. The assertion now is, negatively, that it is an un-warrantable thing to arraign a Christian before a pagan judge.

1. Dare—The word strikes a high keynote. However humble its externals, the Christian republic is, in Christ, far above all principalities and powers. It is, therefore, a flagrant and treasonable daring to bring it to the bar of heathendom. Litigation between Christian men is ever a scandal, because it is rightly expected that they will be just and peaceable. But in our Christian land, such often is the character of our courts, that a civil trial is, from their power of compelling the evidence, often surer of a just result than an ecclesiastical court can be.

Unjust—He says unjust, rather than unbelieving, inasmuch as it is matter of judging and justice that is in discussion.

Saints—Sancti, sanctified or holy ones. Note on 1Co_1:2.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Two SECTIONS; Two TOPICS.—1Co_6:1-20

1Co_6:1-8.—Canon Evans (Speaker’s Commentary) thus exhibits the verbal connection: “Deigneth any one of you (you emphatic), having a matter anent the other (party), to seek for judgment before the wrong-doers and not before the saints? (Are ye so besotted), or do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if in your presence the world is to be judged, unmeet are ye to hold judge-courts of the lowest sort? Do ye not know that angels we shall judge—angels! Speak not of secular things! Nay, rather (that I may unmask your folly by a reductio ad absurdum), if secular judge-courts ye should perchance hold (a measure how unworthy of your kingly calling and of your future judicial status!), take men of utterly no account in the Church and set them on the bench! (Them, I say, for such nonentities are equal to the settlement of such trivialities.) To put you to shame I speak it (this last sentence serious, not satirical). So! is there not among you (wise men as you flaunt yourselves) not even one wise man who shall be competent to arbitrate (give’a decision) on the part of his brother? But brother with brother goes to law (which is a breach of charity) and sues for judgment at the bar of unbelievers (which is preposterous). Nay, verily (let alone the absurd length of appealing to heathen men), it is so far quite a defeat to you that you have cause for legal judgments between yourselves.… Why do ye not rather take wrong (than allow or give cause for this ratio ultima of legal judgment)? Why not submit to being defrauded? Nay, but (the very reverse, so far from taking wrong dealt) you deal wrong yourselves, and (what makes it worse) deal wrong to brethren! (Is this possible?) or do ye (with all your boasted knowledge) not know that wrong-doers (of any sort) shall not inherit God’s kingdom?” To this may be added:—

1Co_6:1. Dare.—Q.d. “What is this that I hear of you? Is it really possible?” Bengel: “Grandi verbo notatur læsa majestas Christianorum.” Connect with the “judging” at end of chap. 5: “I do not yet, as a Christian, judge the world; I shall do some day, and even judge angels. I understand a Christian, and can judge him (1Co_6:12); I do not yet always understand the man of the world; God does, and shall judge him.” Unjust.—Not necessarily meaning doing injustice on the bench. (Cf. the fair character of Gallio.) Perhaps not more than unrighteous, as opposed to “saints” (in a half-technical sense, like “sinners of the Gentiles,” Gal_2:15).

1Co_6:2.—Observe the estimate of secular things: “the smallest matters.” Cf. “that which is least” (Luk_16:10, expounded by 1Co_6:8; 1Co_6:11) = worldly wealth and honour, in many cases. By you.—Lit. in you; as, “in that Man” (Act_17:31).

1Co_6:3. (Evil) angels.—No hint that the good need to submit to a “judgment.” (See Jud_1:6-8; also the saints glorifying God’s judgments, Rev_19:3.)

1Co_6:4.—Choose between (a) “set” (imperative) and (b) “ye set” (indicative). Also between two meanings of “them … least esteemed in the Church”; (c) “the ‘nobodies’ of your membership”; or (d) “the secular judges, who, being secular, men of the world, are, in the eyes of the members of the Church, and in comparison with themselves, of no account.” (d) Highly improbable. Adopt (a) and (c); half-ironical counsel.

1Co_6:5.—As usual meaning “to your shaming,” “that I may arouse your sense of shame.”

1Co_6:7. Fault.—A falling away from the ideal of the dignity of being Christians, and from the ideal of brotherly love, essential to the character.

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—1Co_6:1-8

The Christian and Litigation.

I. Some limitations to an absolute prohibition of Christian appeal to secular courts to be noted.—

1. The State and the Law were not then Christian, but heathen. Case of Corinthian Church not to be compared with condition of things where government, legislation, justice, are affected by, or based on, great principles of Christianity. The parallel case is rather that of two Christians at issue, of whom one, or both, is inclined to drag the matter before a mocking Mahometan kadi, or before an idolatrous, perhaps persecuting, Hindoo prince. In Christendom, at its lowest worth, the “secular” court is, in a sense, an outer Court of the Church, or at least an annexe. Persecuted English Nonconformists have appealed to English judges, often Christian men.

2. The matter in dispute is supposed to be one wholly between Christian parties. “A family business;” the family’s “dirty linen, to be washed at home.” Paul himself carried the case, between him and the Sanhedrin, before the court of the Emperor Nero. “I ought to be judged … at Cæsar’s judgment seat,” viz. before Festus, Cæsar’s representative (Act_25:10). The wrong suffered by a Christian at the hands of a non-Christian may not be merely a personal hardship, beginning and ending with the man and the particular case. [In this latter case the Christian had better suffer, especially if the wrong be put upon him because he is a Christian. 1Pe_4:19 then applies: “Commit … unto a faithful Creator.” “The Lord is at hand.” Also Mat_5:38-45 : “Resist not evil.” “Turn other cheek.” “Let … have cloke also.”] But Christians may happen to represent society. Vindication of his own purely civil right may be needful for sake of social order. [This rule is to be very reluctantly applied, with earnest prayer and great watchfulness over his spirit, lest self, or anger, or pride, or revenge, insinuate themselves into the public spirit of his appeal to law. Mat_5:44 very earnestly then to be remembered: “Love … enemies. Pray for them that despitefully use you.”]

3. Mat_5:34-37 (“Swear not at all.… Your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay”) applies to an ideal society within an ideal kingdom of God. In practice, in the real, complex, actual social order, Christ (silent before, Mat_26:63) and Paul (2Co_1:23) did speak upon a confirmatory oath. One general rule explains and justifies: “Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil”; Christians have to do with fallen men and an evil world. In dealing with these, abatement from the ideal is forced upon them in use of litigation in secular courts. But, within the Church, keep to the ideal. So here, in this section.

II. Between Christian and Christian, and in “biotics” merely (1Co_6:4), litigation before secular tribunals is to be discouraged [unless as last resort].

1. It is an insult to the dignity of the Church and its Lord. “Dare you?”—The thing is treasonable [as when, in the Middle Ages, English law forbade causes to be taken from the King’s courts to that of the Pope]. What jurisdiction have the “unjust” and their courts within the kingdom of Christ? And shall it be a Christian who seeks to introduce the foreign jurisdiction? Does Christ’s law need confirming or superseding, that you appeal to secular? He has given directions for procedure (Mat_18:15-20). First, “thee and him alone.” That failing, a court of first instance; “two or three witnesses.” That failing, the supreme court, the Full “Church,” presided over by the Lord Himself: “there am I in the midst.” They “agree to ask” His guidance; their decisions—“binding” or “loosing”—are His, “bound” or “loosed” “in heaven.”

2. It is unworthy of your own dignity who are resorting to the secular judge.—You seek, and bow to, his decisions, who shall one day stand before you and have to bow to your judgment? [An obscure topic as yet. See Beet’s note appended.

(1) Generally it is the last link of a series of identifications of the saints with their Lord. They “shall be glorified together” (Rom_8:17). Crucified, buried, risen, ascended, hid (as He is) in God, enthroned already with Him (Col_3:3; Eph_2:6), in like manner they are to be brought forth with Him (1Th_4:14), and to be assessors with Him in judgment.

(2) Further, as impossible yet to draw up a coherent, consistent programme of the sub-final Age preceding the Parousia and the General Judgment (and even to adjust all the relations between these two last), as it would have been in Old Testament days to draw up a programme of the First Advent of Christ. Yet collate, tentatively (Dan_7:22-27), “Judgment was given to the saints”; Mat_19:28 (Luk_22:30), “Ye shall sit … judging the twelve tribes.” In Matthew 25 the faithful servant is made “ruler”; in Luk_19:12 sqq. (Pounds, not Talents) the faithful servant has “authority over … cities.” Rev_21:24-26 distinguishes between the nations and their kings (outside) and the New Jerusalem and its citizens (within). Also in Matthew 25 it is expressly “all the nations” that are arrayed before the Son of Man, and even those set on the right hand are distinguished from “these” to whom their good offices have been rendered. Are “these” the assessor-saints sitting in judgment with their Lord?] Whatever may be behind all these mysterious intimations, this is clear: The little Church in Gorinth is invested with a dignity elevating it above all earthly greatness. As seen from heaven, the little nuclei here and there in the Roman world, of artisans, slaves, Jews, “not many noble,” etc., are the distinguished factors in human society. Heaven’s eye singles out the Churches as the all-important facts of earth. The Christian man is to disdain outside help and vindication. What can he want higher, better, more authoritative, than a Church tribunal? Moreover, why should he, a peer of the kingdom, submit himself to the nobody, the commoner, outside its pale and honour—perhaps its enemy? Cannot a Christian trust the competency, or at least the brotherly fairness or love, of his brethren? Do not say you cannot have a Church court; nobody to constitute one. [Extreme case on record: an Independent Church died down to three members; two of them, women, expelled for drunkenness, the third, a man.] Brother and brother should submit to brethren. Not secular litigation, but Church arbitration, the first, the favourite, method whenever possible. Respect the brethren, respect yourselves, ye judges of angels! [“All that statesmen, as such, have to do with religion is to be themselves under its power; all that Christians, as such, have to do with the State is to be good citizens” (Dr. Brown, Horœ Subs., Second Series, p. 52).]

3. It is to degrade the Church and the brother in the eyes of the world. “Before the unbelievers!”—Bad enough that brother sues brother at all. Even the world has its proverb, “Dog does not eat dog” (cf. Gal_5:15). It is a sad “come down” (1Co_6:6) from what your spirit ought to be. But it is a sadder, deeper descent when the brotherhood, showing its worst side, is dragged into the eye of an unfriendly, cold world; when passions which ought not to be known within the Body are obtruded upon the notice of the world,—selfishness defending itself against, or overreaching, selfishness; jealousy, covetousness, partisan feeling, a too eager grasp at the things of a temporal world, and the like. Have no such feelings at all; but if ye do have cases arising (1Co_6:4), at least, for shame, keep them from the men of the world.

4. It is an exaggeration of the importance of the matters at issue.—Mere “things pertaining to this life,” “the smallest matters,” are they worth dividing the brotherhood over, and, much more, of dishonouring it before the outside world? If you will have the matter out, I had almost said, find some poor, humble, simple members, and let them judge; they are good enough judges for such business! But there is a better thing still: do not insist on “having it out”! Let it go. [This the meaning of Php_4:5 : “Your moderation.” “Do not stand too stiffly upon your rights. Yield something of what, in the abstract, is really your due. If there cannot be ‘give and take,’ better that you do all the ‘giving,’ than hurt, by an insistence which may become obstinacy, and may lead to estrangement, strife, and division, the peace of the Church.”] Take wrong; be defrauded. The Lord will see your interests safe. “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Why, you are the wrong-doers, the defrauders—brethren!

APPENDED NOTES

1Co_6:2.—“… In the great Day the saints will intelligently and cordially approve and endorse the sentence pronounced by Christ on the millions of earth. Possibly this approval may be a divinely appointed and essential condition, without which sentence would not be pronounced. For it may enter into God’s plan that sentence be pronounced not only by Man upon men, but by men, themselves redeemed from their own sins, upon those who have chosen death rather than life.… It may be that final sentence cannot, according to the principles of the Divine Government of the Universe, be pronounced upon the lost without the concurrence of the saved, i.e. without a revelation of the justice of the sentence so clear as to secure the full approbation of the saved. If so, the concurrence of the saved is an essential element in the final judgment; and they may truly be said to judge both men and angels. That the sentence which the saints will pronounce is put into their lips by Christ does not make their part in the judgment less real; for even the Son says (Joh_5:30), ‘I cannot of Myself do anything; as I hear I judge.’ ” Also, further, on 1Co_6:3 : “Thus man and men will pronounce sentence on those mighty powers which have seduced men, but from whose grasp the saints have been saved.… All this reveals a mysterious and wonderful connection (cf. Col_1:20) between the moral destiny of our race and that of other races.”—Beet, in loc.

APPENDED NOTES

1Co_6:2.—“… In the great Day the saints will intelligently and cordially approve and endorse the sentence pronounced by Christ on the millions of earth. Possibly this approval may be a divinely appointed and essential condition, without which sentence would not be pronounced. For it may enter into God’s plan that sentence be pronounced not only by Man upon men, but by men, themselves redeemed from their own sins, upon those who have chosen death rather than life.… It may be that final sentence cannot, according to the principles of the Divine Government of the Universe, be pronounced upon the lost without the concurrence of the saved, i.e. without a revelation of the justice of the sentence so clear as to secure the full approbation of the saved. If so, the concurrence of the saved is an essential element in the final judgment; and they may truly be said to judge both men and angels. That the sentence which the saints will pronounce is put into their lips by Christ does not make their part in the judgment less real; for even the Son says (Joh_5:30), ‘I cannot of Myself do anything; as I hear I judge.’ ” Also, further, on 1Co_6:3 : “Thus man and men will pronounce sentence on those mighty powers which have seduced men, but from whose grasp the saints have been saved.… All this reveals a mysterious and wonderful connection (cf. Col_1:20) between the moral destiny of our race and that of other races.”—Beet, in loc.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

XI.—A LACK OF PROPER CHURCH SPIRIT IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CIVIL RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH-MEMBERS AMONG THEMSELVES. LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN TRIBUNALS

1Co_6:1-11

1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to the law before the unjust, 2and not before the saints? Do [Or1 do] ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more [to say nothing of] things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things 5pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak2 to your shame. Isaiah 3 it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one4 that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, [a loss to you5] because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not 8rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, 9[On the contrary, ἀλλά] ye do wrong, and defraud, and that6 your brethren. [Or ἢ] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?7 Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 10Nor thieves, nor covetous,8 nor [not, ου 9] drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall10 inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,11 and by the Spirit of our God.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[“The connection of this paragraph with the preceding, seems to be, ‘As we have nothing to do with judging the heathen, so we ought not to go to law before them, or suffer them to judge us.’ This question was not new. It was held unlawful among the Jews for any Jew to bring a lawsuit against his countrymen before a Gentile judge, on the ground that in Exo_21:1, it is commanded: ‘These are the judgments which thou shalt set before’—not the Gentiles, but ‘them—the Jews.’ ‘If any one brings the judgments of Israel before the Gentiles, he profanes the name of God, and honors the name of an idol. They who so do give occasion to the strangers to say, ‘See how harmonious they are who worship one God.’ This right of settling their own disputes, was conceded to them by the Romans; and hence the speech of Gallio to the Jews who attacked St. Paul. In the first beginning of Christianity, the same rule would be naturally held to apply. The existence of separate courts for the disputes of Christians among themselves, is implied [?] in this passage. The Apostolic Constitutions (II: 4, 5, 46, 47) and the Clementines, in language evidently founded upon this text, imply the existence of such courts at the time when those works were compiled, i. e. , apparently about A. D. 150. When one of the parties was a heathen, then it was thought lawful to prosecute before a heathen tribunal.

Under these circumstances, it was natural that the same controversy, which in a mixed society of Jewish and Gentile Christians ran through be many other departments of human life, should se felt here also; and that the Gentile Christians should still wish to carry on their litigations in the same courts to which they had been previously accustomed, and to indulge the same litigious spirit which had characterized the Greek nation from the time of Aristophanes downward. But in whatever way this tendency originated, the Apostle [here] treats it altogether irrespectively of any Jewish or Gentile custom, and condemns it solely on the ground of the low views which it implied of the greatness of a Christian’s privileges, and the closeness of the bond of Christian brotherhood.” Stanley.]

1Co_6:1. Here also, as in chap, 5, there is indicated a lack of true Christian spirit in the failure to maintain the honor of the Church. In the former case it arose from a want of moral earnestness, here from an earthly temper, and from stubbornness of opinion. The tone of address is sharp.—Dare any of you.—This is not ironical, as Schrader imagines; but it is the direct outburst of indignation at the unworthy conduct, manifested [and also at the risk run], “The injured majesty of Christians,” says Bengel, “is here noted by a grand word.” Τολμᾷν, sustinere, to have the heart to do that from which a just sense of the Christian dignity should have restrained them. Here the culpable party must be regarded, as consisting mainly of Gentile converts, since it was already a custom among the Jews to choose their own umpires—having a matter.—ΙΙρᾶγμα ἔχειν is a phrase denoting civil suits, especially in matters of money and possessions.—against another—of course, a fellow church-member—go to law,—κρίνεσθαι, to separate oneself, to part from, then to contend, to strive, also to debate, and that before a tribunal. “This love of litigation—a remnant of the old leaven which abounded among the traffickers of Corinth—must have derived abundant nourishment from the divisions existing in the Church.”Besser.—before—ἐπί, as in Act_23:30—the unjust—τῶν ἀδίκων. These are the heathen. So in Mat_26:45, they are called ἁμαρτωλοί, sinners; while the Israelites, on the contrary, are termed δίκαιοι, just; Wis_18:20; Wis_16:17; Wis_11:15. The designation ‘unjust’ is employed to bring out more prominently the absurdity [and the peril] of seeking for justice in such a quarter. It exhibits those to whom it is applied as devoid of that true righteousness which is found alone in God’s kingdom, as withholding from God His due, and therefore as unqualified to administer justice among His people. On ἁγίων (=οἱ ἕσω 1Co_5:12) comp. 1Co_1:2.—[“Paul does not here condemn those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, as when a person is summoned to court; but those who of their own accord bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as it were, through means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to employ another remedy.” Calvin. “And besides the scandal of such a proceeding, as exposing their internal differences to the eyes of the heathen, there were certain formularies to be gone through in the heathen Law Courts, such as adjuration by heathen Deities, which would involve them in idolatrous practices.” Words.]

1Co_6:2. He here goes on to show still further what an entire disregard of the true dignity of the Christian state was evinced in their conduct.—Or do ye not know.—The ‘or’ presents an alternative, suggesting some other cause for their conduct, viz., that of ignorance; and the interrogative form used intimates that it was a culpable ignorance of an indubitable and plain truth. [“ This question,” says Words., “occurs no less than ten times in this Epistle, and only twice in all the rest. It was a very fit mode of remonstrance with those who vaunted themselves most on their knowledge.”]—that the saints shall judge the world?—“This is the only clear, direct enunciation we have of the truth here expressed, though it is in perfect harmony with conclusions elsewhere furnished.” Burger. The words imply more than an indirect participation in the judgment of the world, such as is brought to view in Mat_12:41, where it is said: “The men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment against this generation,” etc., viz., that in contrast with the conduct, or faith exhibited by them, the guilt of the world will be set forth in clearer light, [so Chrys. and most of the Greek fathers, Erasmus, Words.]. Nor is it meant that the saints will simply unite in assenting to the sentence pronounced by Christ as assessors on his judgment seat [Barnes, et al.]; nor that they in some general way will be glorified with Him, [Schleus., Heyden., Barnes.]. Still less do they refer to any future judicial functions, which saints are to possess in this world as its princes and rulers, [Lightfoot, Whitby]; nor to any peculiar ability to estimate the value of the world’s opinions and doings, [Mosh. Rosen.] (1Co_2:15, comp. 1Co_6:3). And least of all are they to be interpreters of the church as the perpetual judge of the world, in so far as it carries the light which ever separates the darkness of the world from itself. (Cath.). But they refer to that reigning with Christ which is elsewhere promised to the faithful, (Rom_8:17; 2Ti_2:12), and serve to define more exactly the import of the expression: ‘glorified with Him.’ What was said especially of the Apostles, that they should “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mat_19:28), is here extended, in general, to all the true followers of Christ—His royal people, in relation to that portion of the race which shall persist in its opposition to the Gospel, viz. , the world. In short, Paul here asserts the active participation by the saints in the judicial work of Christ, such as is ascribed to them in Dan_7:22 : “Until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” [The same prediction reappears again in the Apocryphal Book, Wisdom III: 1 Corinthians 8 : “They (the righteous) shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign forever”]; also Rev_2:26-27; Rev_20:4-6. That this is the element in their glory which the Apostle alludes to, the context clearly shows. [Such is the interpretation also of Calvin, Beza, Alf., Stanley, and others. And it is plainly the only tenable one. The others are either too far fetched, or imply a more general acquaintance with the New Testament, in its present form, than could have been possible for the Corinthians; and we cannot suppose that the Apostle would be likely to consider their ignorance of the matters suggested a fit ground for rebuke. But the prophecy of Daniel was in their hands; and the anticipations of the final triumph and glory of the righteous during the reign of the Messiah, were current among believers; and the ignoring or over-looking of these matters might well have been reproved. In fact the final and complete supremacy of Christ’s kingdom was already assured in the very character of its head, and the former could not be disavowed without offence done to the latter. As to the character of the functions which the saints were to fulfil, opinions will vary according to the views adopted in respect to the nature of the millennial glory, and of the relation which the church will sustain to the world at that time. But whatever these functions may be, the language which describes them plainly implies the exercise of an active supremacy in the affairs of the world. That which saints are expected to do then, must, in some way, be analogous to the duties which the Apostle urges upon the church-members to discharge for themselves in the present age. For this reason the view of Hodge and Barnes and others, who suppose a reference in the text “to the future and final judgment” (with a somewhat uncertain allusion to Dan_7:22, as though the event pointed to here were the same as the other), must be set aside. On that occasion the saints appear only as the retinue of the Judge, and are nowhere represented as taking an active part in the trial. The idea of Barnes that the saints are to judge the world by simply ‘encompassing the throne,’ and ‘assenting to Christ’s judgment,’ and occupying “a post of honor As If they were associated with him in judgment,” hardly suits the style of the Apostle’s reasoning]. The natural conclusion from all this, viz., that persons destined to so lofty an office, ought also to be deemed worthy of passing judgment on the trifling matters of this life, is put in the form of a question, expressive of astonishment. This, as is often the case, is introduced with an ‘and.’ The question, however, is not thereby made dependent on the previous one, ‘Know ye not?’ but it stands by itself.—And if among you the world is to be judged.—The judges are here conceived of as constituting one vast assembly, in the midst of which the adjudication proceeds. The ἕν ὐμῖν is not precisely equivalent to: ‘through you,’ as in Act_17:31; nor to: ὑ φ’ ὑμῶν, by you, though the sense is about the same; nor: ‘in you,’ i. e., by your example; but properly: in the midst of you, and so; before you: (coram). [Winer § XL.VIII., etc. “Hence,” says Meyer, “it is evident that the saints themselves are to be the judges sitting in judgment. And ἐν is employed in view of the following κριτηρίων, since the Christians judging therein, are conceived of as one judicial concourse, for the sake of representing the idea more vividly”]. The εἰ if, in εἰκρίνεται, as the context shows, is not meant to exhibit the judgment as at all problematical, but only states it as indubitably presupposed in what follows. The notion of futurity here retires into the background.—Are ye unworthy of the smallest judgments?—Κριτήρια is a word used to denote both places or courts of trials, and also the trials themselves which are there held. Here it means the latter, and the whole clause is to be taken in an active sense, q. d., are ye unworthy of holding trial in the smallest matters? [Many, like de Wette, Olsh., Hodge, Words., understand by κριτήρια, the matters in trial, as better suited to the context, 1Co_6:4; 1Co_6:7, but Meyer says that this is contrary to all usage]. The adjective here (ἐλαχίστων) refers to the matters brought to trial, and which are here designated as of the most trifling sort, having to do simply with the earthly ‘mine and thine,’ Luk_16:10.

1Co_6:3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? to say nothing of things that pertain to this life?—[A still wider contrast.] But are there here two questions, or only one or are we to take the second clause as a corollary? Since μήτιγε in the first instance means, not at all (Passow ΙΙΙ. p. 230. [Rob. Gr. Lex.]), and then: yet much less, it would seem to indicate that there is also a second question here. The sense then would be: ‘Our judicial power, as ye ought to know, extends even beyond, even unto celestial beings; should it not then be now first applied to terrestrial matters’? i. e., how much more now ought it to be applied to these?—In respect to the fact first alluded to, ‘the judging of angels’, we must at the outset put aside every explanation, which makes the phrase expressive of something inferior to the work of judging the world, instead of something which is an advance upon it—whether this be done by taking ‘angels’ to mean church officers, or priests, or teachers distinguished for devilish cunning; and by supposing the judgment spoken of to be of a spiritual kind, as relating to the errors of these parties, or to be even a mere ability to judge, (Gal_1:8). The only point in doubt is, whether angels in general are referred to, or merely good angels, or merely bad ones. Besser says: ‘both classes; to the damnation of the bad, but on the good, to pronounce a judgment of blessing, since they will be united with us under one Head in Christ’. (Eph_1:10). Since, however, the idea that good angels are meant, finds support only in that relation which they sustain to believers, hinted at in Heb_1:14, and in the hypothetical expression found in Gal_1:8, and inasmuch as good angels are represented as furnishing a part of Christ’s retinue in judgment, and as acting the part of organs and witnesses of His judicial work, (Mat_13:39; Mat_16:27; Mat_24:31; Mat_25:31, 2Th_1:7, Rev_20:1 ff.), we are constrained to adopt the explanation, which supposes evil angels to be referred to, as the only correct one. [So Chrys. and most of the Greek fathers, and Calvin and Beza, and Bengel, Poole, and most of commentators. Whitby, with the same reference understands the judgment to denote that expulsion of the devils from their dominion over the world by the power of the Gospel, of which our Saviour speaks in Joh_12:31; Joh_16:11. On the contrary, Meyer, Alf. and Hodge, following the usage of the N. T., where the word αγγελοι, without any qualifying epithet always means good angels, interpret it so here. But they do not profess to explain how these are to be judged, or they give to the word, ‘judge’, a very comprehensive meaning, implying only superiority of a general sort. Billr., de Wette, Stanley, leave the matter undecided. See Pool and Whitby.] At the same time it must be said that the unqualified term ‘angels’ indicates the superhuman nature of the beings contemplated, and puts them in contrast with the world; [and ‘the argument will be not less conclusive in this way.” Calvin;] while the position they are in, so analogous to that of the world, marks them as standing in an abnormal relation to God, and implies that the judgment spoken of will be one of condemnation, the same as in 1Co_6:2, and not one that merely decides upon honors and rewards.—Βιωτικά=things serviceable for this life (Luk_8:43), which belong to bodily sustenance, and are therefore of an earthly, temporal sort, as is every thing which forms a ground for suits respecting property, debts or inheritance. [“The Latin translation of this word by sæcularia, is probably one of the first instances of the use of that word, in its modern sense of ‘worldly’ as opposed to spiritual, instead of its ancient sense, ‘belonging to a cycle of a hundred years’; and from this has sprung the signification of the word ‘secular’ in modern European languages”. Stanley].

1Co_6:4. Secular trials indeed then would ye have.—[Βιωτικά is repeated with emphasis, and so stands first, and] κριτήρια is to be construed as in 1Co_6:2, not as equivalent to πράγματα, matters to be judged, for this rendering is void of support. ̔Ἔχειν might denote in this connection: to have on hand; or, to have a just comprehension of; consequently: to be in a condition to manage (as in the phrases, ἔχειν επιστήμην, τέχνας, τὴν ἰατρκήν, etc.), and this would fit well with what precedes. The μέν, introducing a clause correlative to the one following, might remain untranslated, and οὖν be rendered by, then, accordingly, or by some word of transition, which would indicate that the point mentioned has been established, and that the clause where it occurs also stands in inward connection with some previous expression. Properly: ‘Have ye then indeed such trials? but ye by no means proceed in a manner suitable to this fact!’ This thought would then be expressed by a protasis and apodosis, of which the latter is to be regarded as a question of astonishment at such procedure. An interrogation similar to this we have in Joh_10:36 (comp. Joh_6:35), “how happens it that ye do this?” But such an explanation would necessitate our taking ἐάν as equivalent to εἰ, which could only be justified on the score of the laxity of the later Greek in this respect, and provided another interpretation were inadmissible. But we may interpret the ἐὰν κριτήρια ἔχητε, of the actual existence of such trials among them; in which case ἐάν would mean, if, in case that, and we should interpret the clause thus: ‘if now it should happen that trials, involving secular matters, are held among you,—those despised in the church these do ye set up?—i. e. as judges. By ‘the despised,’ he means the unjust or the unbelievers, before spoken of, who, as such, pass for nothing in the Church, and enjoy no confidence or authority there. [“This translation,” Hodge says, “is generally preferred as best in keeping with the context,” and Wordsworth adopts it also. See, however, the note below]. But if any do not choose to construe it as a question of astonishment, it may be taken as a simple affirmation, stating once more what was actually occurring among them. [“So in the main, Luther, Calvin, Rückert, Olsh., de Wette, Neander, and otters]. The οὖν would then be an ecbatic particle. Yet the form of the question would in any case, be the more emphatic. The use of καθιζετε is also a remarkable way of expressing an appeal to heathen judges on the part of Christians, for it implies that such judges were formally set up in office by the Christians themselves, when they could have had no hand in their appointment, and only seemed to do so by appealing to them for decision in cases over which they ought to have no adjudication.—Τούτους, these, an emphatic repetition of the persons alluded to [involving also contempt]. Others, objecting partly to the use of καθίζειν in relation to heathen authorities, who are supposed to be already existing, and partly to the application of τοὺς εξουθενη μένους to the heathen as unsuitable [and inconsistent with the respect which Paul inculcates toward heathen magistrates], understand the latter to denote church members, and construe the whole in the Imp. as an injunction [of rather an ironical sort]: ‘If you must have trials, those least esteemed in the Church, these set up rather as judges.’ But in such a case the text ought to read: τοὺς ἐν τη ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξοθεν, and the word ‘rather,’ would be an arbitrary insertion. This insertion would, however, be necessary, if we understood the Apostle to mean such persons as might be suitable for the office in question, but who, for some reason, were of little repute. But, however this may be, still our first interpretation is favored by what follows.12

1Co_6:5-6.—To your shame I speak.—Comp. on 1Co_4:14. The expression applies, as in 1Co_15:34, to what precedes; and what follows, in part, explains more fully how far that spoken of in 1Co_6:4 is disgraceful to them, and, in part, repeats emphatically the case as it stood.—So is there not among you not even one wise man.—The οὔτως is either climacteric, meaning: ‘so completely are ye wanting in wise men,’ which rendering does not well suit a strong negation [but is adopted by Chrys., Luther, Billr., Calvin, Alf., Olsh., Rückert]; or it is: ‘in this way,’ ‘under these circumstances,’ referring back to 1Co_6:4 : ‘seeing that ye set up those persons despised in the Church for judges.’ [So Meyer. The rendering here must be determined by the view taken of the import of 1Co_6:4. If that last advocated be the correct one, it would be more natural to understand οὔτως in the former sense. King James’ translation places the stress of the interrogation here, deviating in this respect from the previous versions which translate it, “utterly,” “at all,” and supposes an ellipsis: “Is it so that there is not?”]. ̔́Ενι is for ἕνεστι, an adverbial use of the ἔν without the copula=‘is there,’ ‘does there exist.’.—Ον̓ δὲ—εἷς, a strong expression, like non ullus, nemo unus, ‘not even one.’ Considering how wise they were in their own conceit, the question here is a very cutting one. At the same time it suggests a strong reason for their altering their conduct. By it he would urge them to the practical exercise of their vaunted wisdom—a matter in which they sadly failed. Σοφός, skilful, expert in resources, experienced, discreet.—who shall be able—i. e., when a cause comes up—to decide. διακρῖναι—to arbitrate in a formal manner—between his brother, ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὑτοῦ,—a wise expression, where a person understanding himself to be meant, supplies in thought: ‘and a brother.’ Meyer regards the party distinctly mentioned as the complainant (the defendant he understood as a matter of course, who is specified by way of distinction, as the party in fault). Had the plural been used, the two litigants would then have been equally brought to view. In the use of the term ‘brother,’ a rebuke is intended which is still further enlarged upon—but brother goeth to law with brother.—This is not a question, whether considered independently, or as continuing the previous one; but it is an affirmation full of severe reproof. [“’Αλλά, after a question, passes rapidly on to the other alternative, the particle, which negatives the question being supressed, q. d., ‘nay; but.’ ” Alf.]. Κρίνεται, goeth to law, stands opposed to διακρίνειν, to arbitrate. Then, by way of contrast with the “wise man among you,” before whom they ought to have settled their difficulties, we have the sad opposite:—and that before unbelievers.—[“and that,” a form of expression used when particular stress is to be laid on the circumstance indicated.” Hodge].

1Co_6:7-8. Looking away now from the point last mentioned, i. e., going to law before unbelievers, he here passes to rebuke the entire practice of litigation among Christians as in itself wrong.—indeed therefore—ἥ δημὲνο ὖν. The μέν gives a peculiar prominence to the point to be mentioned as being the worst of all; οὗν is simply transitional and conjunctive; but ἥδη (see Passow ΙΙ.1326ff.) is a determinative particle, which serves, in part, to strengthen the whole clause, and, in part, to call particular attention to certain thoughts about to be presented.—it is in any case a loss for you.—̔́Ολωςpresents the aspect of the case generally, without reference to any peculiar, aggravating circumstances, such as going to law “before unbelievers.” [Stanley renders it: “certainly”] ̔́Ηττημα. lit.: a falling short; it is used, partly, of failings and imperfections (hence the var. ἐνὑμῖν), and, partly, of injuries, or damage, whether it be in an ethical sense, as caused by the outbreak of sin and the violence of passion (comp: ἡττασθαι, 2Pe_2:20; νικᾶσθαι, Rom_12:21), or as some evil consequence upon these outbreaks, such as hinderance to our salvation, and to our participation in God’s kingdom. It is here undoubtedly the latter, and points to what is more fully stated in 1Co_6:9. This is undoubtedly the more correct interpretation, and it forms an implied contrast to any supposed temporal advantage they might gain by any legal process. [So Meyer, de Wette, Words., Alf., Hodge. But Calvin, Beng., Billr., Stanley, Rückert, Olsh., all prefer the meaning: ‘fault,’ ‘imperfection,’ ‘weakness.’ And there is strong ground for their interpretation]. Neander: “A backsliding of the Church, and sinking down from the high standard of pure Christian feeling.” ὑμῖν, Dative of interest—that ye have lawsuits with yourselves.—Κρίμα elsewhere means, judicial decision, sentence, also judgment. With this rendering the sense would be: ‘that it comes to this, that ye have legal decisions,’ etc. The same sense substantially is obtained if we adopt the meaning which attaches to κρίνεσθαι, and which does not elsewhere appear, viz.: lawsuits. [So Rob. Lex. sub. voce; but Alf. says: ‘matters of dispute’]. Μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν: ‘with yourselves;’ more expressive than ἀλλήλων: one another. [It suggests the unity of the Christian body, so in contrast with the segregated condition of the world].—How Christians ought to conduct themselves in cases affecting the ‘mine and thine,’ he states in the more striking form of a question.—Why do ye not rather take injustice? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?—The verbs ἀδικεῖσθε—ἀποστερεῖσθε are both middle and to be rendered as above. They imply the suffering of a ‘loss.’ It is one, however, only in appearance, being a victory in fact (Osi.). Comp. Mat_5:39 ff. What follows may be taken as a strong assertion, or as a question, which either stands independently, or is depending still on ‘why,’ since the question ‘or do you not know,’ of 1Co_6:9, has also its logical relations in the ‘why’ (so Meyer, ed. 2). But the former construction, which makes the sentence direct and independent, would be more expressive, and it is supported by καὶ τοῦ το ἀδελφος. The ἀλλά a then will have its proper force.—But ye (ὕμεῖς. emphatic, ye Christians) do injustice and defraud—[the same verbs as in the previous clause, but active transitive] and that brethren.—[“This passage is remarkable as being founded on the spirit of Mat_5:40.” Stanley]. [On the nature of ecclesiastical jurisdiction maintained by the early Church in secular affairs, its relation to that of the State, and the evils resulting from it, see Neander’s Church History, Vol. II. p. 139ff., Torrey’s Translation].

1Co_6:9-10. Or know ye not.—The question presupposes a self-evident answer respecting the conduct spoken of. ‘Such proceedings should not hate been allowed by you, a people whose hope takes hold on God’s kingdom, and who profess to be the children, and so the heirs of the Most High. “Or,” etc., i. e, your conduct can only be explained on the supposition of such ignorance.’—that the unjust God’s kingdom shall not inherit?—Here (ἄδικοι) the idea I involved in ἀδικεῖν, to do injustice, must be kept in view, yet looking away from the point wherein they as members of the Church were especially guilty. The ‘unjust’ (“a term used of the heathen in 1Co_6:1, and here designedly brought in for the purpose of putting all who were unjust on a par with the heathen” Neander) are properly those among whom the practice of injustice has become habitual, who persist in wrong without repenting.—But here the word denotes the immoral generally, those who offend God and man by iniquities of every kind, such as are specified in the following context.—In reference to ‘God’s kingdom,’ see on 1Co_4:20. Considered in its perfection, as the object of Christian hope, the kingdom of God is the blessed state, wherein the will of a holy, loving, all-restoring, beatific God is fully realized; or, in other words, a condition wherein men and angels are unitedly and perfectly controlled by the Divine will, lead a life of righteousness and peace, and together with this, possess the highest good which it is desirable for men to participate in. And this participation is expressed by the word ‘inherit’ (κληρονομειν). It is something that properly belongs to the believer as a child of God (Rom_8:17; Gal_4:7), and involves a gracious right and an enduring possession. The expression, meaning literally, to obtain by lot, and then, to receive as an inheritance, belongs to the language of the Theocracy, and is used in the Old Testament to denote the entrance into the promised land, and into the society of those who are governed by the will of God. And this was but the type or shadow (σκία) of the kingdom, of God that was to be set up on a renovated earth (2Pe_3:13; Mat_5:5). (That the verb takes after it the Accusative instead of the Genitive, belongs to the later Hellenic usage). The ‘not inheriting,’ implying an exclusion from the possession of the highest good, explains what is meant by κατακρίνεσθαι. and ἀπόλλυσθαι.—That all conduct, which contravenes the justice of God, or the ordering of holy love, should cause a forfeiture of this inheritance, lies in the very nature of the case. In the Corinthian Church, however, there appear to have been some light-minded people who sought to persuade themselves and others that God did not mean exactly what he said, that this inheritance could never be withheld from any who had joined the Church. [“Such a divorce of morality from religion has been manifested in all ages, and under all forms of religion. The pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the nominal Christian, have all been exact in the performance of religious services, while unrestrained in the indulgence, of every evil passion. This arises from looking on religion as an outward service, and God as a being to be feared and propitiated, not loved and served.” Hodge]. Against all such false conceptions and vain words (Eph_5:6), Paul here warns the Church with his oft-recurring—Be not deceived (1Co_15:33; Gal_6:7, etc.)—To this he appends a full catalogue of such immoralities as exclude from God’s kingdom:—neither fornicators.—This indicates the vice prevalent in Corinth, and points back to chap. 5. To this he annexes, that wherewith fornication was closely connected in Heathendom, and which I when practised by God’s people, was termed both ‘fornication’ and ‘adultery:’—nor idolaters.—Then comes that inordinate indulgence of the sexual passion which violated alike the Divine ordinance of marriage, and the rights of the married parties:—nor adulterers.—The series of this class ends with the mention of that unnatural gratification of lust indicated in the words:—nor effeminate, nor Sodomites.—These express correlative ideas. The former denotes those who allowed themselves to be used as women (qui muliebria patiuntur); the latter, such as used the former in this unnatural way—a wide-spread vice in that period (comp. Wetstein on this passage, and on Rom_1:27). Next follow classes of the ‘unjust,’ in the more restricted sense, such as violently seized upon others’ possessions, or more indirectly sought for them:—nor thieves, nor covetous,—(comp. on 1Co_5:10 ff.).—In like manner in regard to the following—nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners.—The enumeration is not strictly logical, since those last mentioned would naturally come in after the ‘covetous.’ But drunkards and revilers naturally go together, since the vice of the latter commonly results from that of the former. After asserting solemnly that such—shall not inherit the kingdom of God,—he goes on to remind the Corinthians that for them these trials belonged to the past, and that indulgence in such vices was for them a backsliding into their old heathenish state, which utterly contradicted their high Christian experience.

1Co_6:11. And these things some (of you) were.—The neuter ταῦτα carries a contemptuous implication, q. d., ‘such a set,’ ‘such stuff’ (Meyer). Τινὲς: ‘some, not all. What otherwise would be a too sweeping and severe imputation is thus limited in its application and softened in tone. [Calvin and Hodge regard the τινὲς as redundant or as distributive, q. d., some were one thing and some another]. The simple ἧτε, or ὑμεῖς ἧτε, would imply too much, since all the Corinthian converts, without exception, had not been addicted to either one or all the immoralities specified; yet, on the other hand, τινὲς ὑμῶν ἧτε would have implied too little. “It would bring the whole body prominently to notice, and intimate that only a part would agree with the description.” Osiander. The change which, however, had passed over them, is indicated by three expressions introduced with the emphatic repetition of ‘but,’ designed to set forth the contrast more strongly.—But ye were washed clean.—απελούσασθε—[ἀπό; off, all off, clean, intensive. This refers to their joining the Church in baptism. Comp. Tit_3:5. In like manner Act_22:16, where the verb is aor. mid., and signifies, baptize thyself, or, cause thyself to be baptized, not, ‘be baptized,’ as ‘though it were passive. And so the verb here is middle, and must be taken in a reflexive sense, though it is difficult to translate it thus in English]. The term ‘wash,’ points to the defilement incurred by the sins before spoken of, and to the purification effected through the forgiveness obtained in baptism, or the removal of guilt then pledged (Act_22:16). It is analogous to καθαρίσας (Eph_5:26). The moral purification, by the doing away of all that is sinful (Rückert), we cannot therefore take to be here meant: although repentance and faith are presupposed in baptism. In this washing of baptism, however, the cleansing through the blood of Christ (Rev_1:5; 1Jn_1:7) must be considered as included.—Ye sanctified yourselves, ἡ λιάσθητε—This, too, is middle. It cannot therefore be supposed to denote the inward, progressive sanctification accomplished by the Spirit; but, as in 1Co_1:2, the act of personal consecration to God, of separation from the world and translation into fellowship with God; yet this, not putatively, nor externally merely, but as involving also some operation of the Divine Spirit on the heart (comp. Tit_3:5; 1Pe_1:2).—Ye were justified, ἐδι και ώθητε.—This, in accordance with the usage of Paul and of the Bible generally, is to be construed, not after Augustine and the Council of Trent, as if it meant: ‘made righteous’ inwardly. This is contradicted by the aorist tense of the verb. But it implies an introduction into the state of the ‘just,’ admission to a participation in the salvation of God—to a place in His kingdom and a share in His blessings. This exhibits the positive side of God’s salvation (the removal of guilt being the negative side), and is the result of consecration to God. Hence it fitly concludes the series. All three taken together denote an entrance into the state of grace [“ and refer to the first conversion.” Stanley. The view given by Kling is substantially that of Calvin, Hodge, Alf., Words. But the words also carry a further implication in the way of contrast. ‘Having become thus, ye are not to defile and pollute yourselves afresh and incur, renewed condemnation’].—in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God.—These qualifying phrases are by some referred to all three of the foregoing verbs, and by others to the last alone. Others still make a division, referring the words, ‘in the name’ to ‘justified,’ or to this and ‘washed;’ but the words, ‘in the Spirit’ to ‘sanctified.’ These attempts are a failure; although it is indeed true that the ‘washing’ and the ‘justification’ are grounded upon the name of Christ. ‘Even as, on the other hand, sanctification comes through the Spirit. Again the reference of these phrases to all three of the verbs appears to be opposed by the separation of the verbs effected by ‘but,’ as well as by the unsuitableness of connecting the fact of the washing with the Spirit, since according to the rule (to which Act_4:7 is no exception) the reception of the Spirit is consequent on baptism (Meyer). But the first reason given cannot be decisive; and so far as the second goes, we find that in Tit_3:5, the ‘renewal of the spirit’ is connected directly with baptism, as epexegetical of παλιγγενεσίας. And as the phrase ‘in the name of Christ,’ indicates the objective ground on which the washing rests, so does the phrase, ‘in the Spirit,’ indicate the subjective ground of the same, that is, the principle which inwardly imparts and applies the absolution implied in the washing. On the name of Christ comp. on 1Co_1:2. The entire personality of Jesus, so far as it is made known to us in the work of redemption and indicated in the name, is the objective ground both of the pardon granted in baptism and of our justification and sanctification, according to the sense of the terms above given. But the Spirit of God applies to each individual what is offered to us in that name. He brings it directly to our consciousness, insures and imparts it to us, and enables us to realize it all within our own hearts. [“By the ἡμῶν: our, added to ‘God,’ he binds the Corinthians and himself together in the glorious blessings of the Gospel state, and mingles the oil of joy with the mourning which by his reproof he is reluctantly creating.” Alford],

[Obs. This whole passage 1Co_6:1-9, is memorable as laying the foundation for that ecclesiastical jurisdiction in civil affairs which in the lapse of centuries grew to such mighty proportions as to overshadow for a time the temporal sovereignty, and even threaten to subjugate it altogether. There are traces of the existence of church-courts for civil causes among Christians as early as the middle of the second century, and in the Apost. Const. , II. 47, the rule for the regulation of their proceedings is laid down. Ordinarily, however, the bishop became the referee in such disputes, and his office as umpire contributed largely to the increase of his importance and authority, and also greatly endangered his spirituality. When the State became Christian, this jurisdiction was conferred by law, and made binding on all parties that appealed to it. The custom once established, gradually extended itself with the increase of ecclesiastical pretensions, and the decay of secular power, until the Church assumed the form of a political association, with a well defined system of ecclesiastical polity that divided the control with the State both over the laity and the clergy, even in temporal matters, and aimed steadily at exempting the latter in particular from all amenability to the State. The history of this wonderful and yet perverse development of authority from the positions laid down in the text, furnishes a most instructive commentary on its meaning, and shows us the necessity of correctly interpreting it.

The limitations by which the precept is beset are as follows: 1. The litigants must be both church-members. Redress from wrongs inflicted from without may be sought at civil tribunals when public justice seems to require it—Paul, e. g., appealed to Cæsar. 2. The causes, comparatively trivial, the minor matters of property, for example, in relation to which it were better that covetousness be mortified by quietly enduring the wrong, than indulged by the enforcement of rights. 3. The tribunals, heathen, or of a heathenish kind. The case may be altered when the judges are Christians. Yet even under such circumstances litigation between “brethren” ought, if possible, to be avoided. 4. The nature of the adjudication, informal—that of umpires chosen for the purpose by the contestants, and not of regular church courts. Paul’s aim was to preserve the peace and spirituality of the Church by the avoidance of litigation, not to convert the Church into an arena for conflicts, and thus to secularize it. The Church was never constituted to be “a ruler and a divider” among men. 5. The evil condemned is not the practice of going to law, as though this were wrong in itself, for the magistrate, too, is a “member of God for good,” but the litigious spirit so contrary to the Christian temper. There are instances when it would be a manifest sin not to seek justice. But in doing so, a Christian should take care to show that he was actuated, not by feelings of revenge, but by a supreme regard to law and order, and by a desire that even the wrong-doer may be reconciled to Him.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. [The judicial function of the Saints in the age to come]. Those are mighty words, “the saints shall judge the world,” “we shall judge angels.” Through them we catch a glimpse into the mysteries of the Heavenly kingdom, especially into the fundamental mystery of the creating and judging Word, and into the vital fellowship which believers have with their Lord, likewise also into the mystery of the future, when the inward life of the saints, which is now hid with Christ in glory, will be made manifest as a life of Divine power and holiness. Those of whom Christ said, “I in them and they in me,” of whom it is grandly sung,

“ Devoid of strength they are guardians for all;

Poor, yet they win, let the worst befall,”—

who here on earth have shared with their Redeemer in His sufferings and shame, these very ones will share with Him hereafter in the manifestations of His glory. “When Christ, who is their life, shall appear, exhibiting Himself as He really is, then will they also appear with Him as gods of earth, to the astonishment of the world. They will reign and flourish eternally, shining as stars in the firmament of God.”

But by virtue of this union with Christ in glory, they become partners also in His judicial authority. Having been exempted from judgment through faith in their Lord, they will join with Him in executing judgment over all, whether men or angels, who amid the exhibitions of Divine love and wisdom and power and righteousness have continued hostile to God’s truth, disregardful of His grace, contemptuous toward His salvation, and opposed to all the ways of His kingdom—hardening themselves evermore in their enmity, until past hope. And this judgment will be an act both of deepest insight,—piercing through to the very centre of the heart, and detecting there the inexcusableness of sin, and of highest moral power—exhibiting a righteousness full of decision and vigor—allowing of no further protests—exposing the fallacy of excuses, and annihilating them all as false and untenable through the might of an all-enlightening truth.

And this power to discern and judge at that period, is a living principle imparted to Christians now, through the indwelling life of Christ, and it unfolds itself onward unto perfection with the growth of their spiritual life, until it reaches its highest state of exercise in the future kingdom of glory. There is always implied in it a demonstration of the mind of Christ, as well in that pitying love which goes out after the lost, tracks them in their wanderings, and wisely and patiently applies the means of their restoration, as in that holiness which should keep them from all fellowship with sin, consecrate them entirely to God, and maintain them in the obedience of faith amid manifold temptations from within and from without, in joy and sorrow, in honor and dishonor, in abundance and want, in health and sickness, even unto death; so that, as the instruments of Christ’s truth and love, they shall have done what they could towards awakening, convincing and converting those who still walk in darkness—thus proving themselves fit and warranted to act the part of judges with their Lord at the last.

But as their authority is also to be exercised over the world of spirits, these too must in some way be regarded as coming under this saving influence. For is not the blood of Christ’s cross said to be God’s means for reconciling all things unto Himself, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven? (Col_1:20). And is not the manifold wisdom of God to be proclaimed by means of the Church, even unto principalities and powers in heavenly places? (Eph_3:10). Shall we then mistake if we imagine that even in the extra mundane sphere there are also fallen beings, yet capable of salvation; and that into this sphere, whence came temptation and ruin unto our race, there shall in return go forth blessed agencies of deliverance from this very race, according to the wonderful council of God, and by virtue of the advent of His Son, through whom every thing above and beneath has been created? This is indeed an operation which, like that of the operation of this spirit-world upon us, comes not within the direct consciousness of believers; yet this fact does not militate against its reality, and like much that is now concealed, it will be made known to believers, as they enter upon their heavenly state. And if it be true, this circumstance will the more qualify believers for sitting in judgment over those bad spirits who obstinately close themselves against all such gracious influences, and scorn the salvation offered in Christ. These are conjectures indeed, and they might be carried out still further into the consideration of the particular duties in which the departed saints might engage in the other world. But it will not do to reject them as idle dreams, since they are in accordance with the analogy of Scripture, and are supported by the essential connection which exists between the judgment, and prevenient efforts directed to the recovery of the fallen.

Since the judicial work of the saints is not simply a corroboration of the sentence pronounced by Christ, but also an active participation in the judgment carried on by Him, as the organs of His office, a training preparatory to this high function will naturally be required of them. To this there belongs—1, a learning to speak what is true and right, not only in public, but also in private stations, so that a readiness may be acquired in distinguishing between right and wrong, and there shall be no danger of being misled, either through the purblindness of the foolish, or by the corrupt sophistries and wretched infatuation of the self-opinionated and dogmatic (analogous with Luk_16:10 ff; Luk_19:17 ff.); 2, a calm, self-denying willingness to accept justice as set forth in the sentence rendered, whether it come from a judge or an umpire; for here the rule holds good, that obedience to authority is the best qualification for exercising authority; 3, the still loftier self-denial shown in a readiness to suffer wrong rather than to gain aught by going to law at the expense of love and unity. On the other hand, the habit of over-reaching and defrauding, originating in a spirit of selfish greed, as it disqualifies for admission into God’s kingdom, so does it in an especial manner unfit a person to exercise judgment. And this is true also of every act which violates the rights either of God or man; for all such acts virtually disown and entirely neutralize that state of grace into which a person has been brought through the name of Christ and by the Spirit of God. The persons who practise them have washed and consecrated themselves, and been justified (in baptism) to no purpose.

[2. The natural condition of man, depraved and lost (1Co_6:9-11). When unchecked, the original sin of our constitution breaks out into the most flagrant vices and crimes, which reveal the inherent corruption. The most refined Pagan civilization has no power to restrain and cure it. Rather it serves to intensify the evil. The most demoralized society in the old world was to be found in the most refined of its cities. And the character, thus vitiated, forever excludes from a state of glory. It shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The strong negation here precludes all hope for such as possess it, and together with this puts the stamp of falsehood upon the figment of a universal salvation. No statement could be more explicit and conclusive]

[3. The change which fits the sinner for heaven is a radical one, wrought in Christ and through the Spirit, yet not independently of human volition. “Ye have washed yourselves clean, ye have sanctified yourselves, ye are justified.” The filth of sin is voluntarily removed. From being his own, the person consecrates himself to God, and becomes forgiven and reconciled to God through faith in the work of Christ, and by the influence of the Spirit. Thus old things pass away, and all things become new, under the operation of Divine grace, and through the consent of the individual. There is, therefore, in renewal a voluntary assumption of the weightiest obligation to keep one’s self unspotted from the world].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[Litigation on the part of Christians—1, involves great risk, and betokens a corresponding ‘daring,’ for it is a seeking for justice before the avowedly unjust, 1Co_6:1 a; 2 is a repudiation of their proper society, and of the advantages its saintly character holds out, 1Co_6:1 b; 3, is derogatory to the dignity of the litigants themselves, who are, by their profession, destined to be hereafter judges of the world and of angels, 1Co_6:2-3; 1 Corinthians 4, is an imputation upon the ability of their brethren to decide in the matters of lesser moment here, 1Co_6:2; 1Co_6:5; 1 Corinthians 5, should be superseded by the selection of umpires in the Church, and the small matters it involves treated as they deserve, 1Co_6:4; 1 Corinthians 6, is a disgrace to the Church and a cause of scandal, as it opens the faults of Christians to the observation and sneers of the world; 7, iscontrary to the spirit of Christ, “who, when He was reviled, reviled not again, and when He suffered, threatened not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously,” 1Co_6:7; 1 Corinthians 8, implies wrong doing on the part of Christians, provoking litigation by their conduct towards each other, 1Co_6:8; 1 Corinthians 9, those who by their offences provoke litigation are in danger of losing their inheritance in God’s kingdom and becoming outcasts with the vicious of every class, 1Co_6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 10, the offences which cause it, and the spirit in which it is often done, are contrary to the change which believers profess to have passed through, 1Co_6:11].

Starke:

1Co_6:1. It is not in itself wrong to seek justice before earthly tribunals, since government, too, is a Divine ordinance, designed for protection and order; and Paul himself appealed to unbelieving magistrates against the persecution of the Jews (Act_22:25; Act_25:10). But in all law-suits let every one take care wherefore, and before whom, and how he litigates. Otherwise his action may prove both a disgrace and a sin.

1Co_6:2. In the coming judgment of the saints there is great comfort for those who have lost a righteous cause. Let corrupt judges mark well. Against whatsoever righteous ones they have declared unrighteous judgment, by these will they be righteously judged at the last day.

1Co_6:3. To be associated with Christ in judgment is one of the loftiest honors promised to believers, 1Pe_2:9; Rev_1:5-6; Rev_3:21. The dignity thus conferred should be displayed even in this life by the control which they maintain not only over themselves and the world, but also over the Devil, and so in their conquest over all their spiritual enemies. It should be shown also in the way they judge and condemn the world in and through their life and doctrine.

1Co_6:4. Those who know and enjoy God ought to be held in higher esteem, and deemed more worthy of confidence, than those in whom such knowledge is wanting.

1Co_6:6. Earthly goods are the means of separating the most united, heavenly goods can unite the most hostile.

1Co_6:7. Christians ought to hold temporal possessions of such small account that the prime question with them should not be whether they have, or have not; and they should be so affectionate toward each other, that in case of dissension about “the mine and thine” the temporal good should seem so small and the brother so important, that ere they would disquiet their spirits by litigation, and unfit themselves for religious duties, and cause offence to their neighbors, they would let the whole thing go and suffer the loss.

1Co_6:8. (Hed.). If an intelligent person is guilty of the wrong, then he commits the greater sin in putting the innocent person to so much cost and trouble with his lies; if the wrong-doer is ignorant, then it is not right, 1, to pursue the most stringent course with him and practise no forbearance; 2, to go to law in envious, avaricious, or ugly temper; 3, besides, the thing does not pay.

1Co_6:9-10. Those who needlessly go to law are classed with thieves and licentious persons, etc., and incur a like condemnation. The world evidently judges very different from the Holy Spirit. Nothing is more common than to excuse sin because of its commonness. If all on this catalogue are lost, you can count the saved, almost all. Ye unrighteous litigants, fornicators, small and great thieves, sly and open thieves, be alarmed!

1Co_6:11. (Hed.): “Such were some,” etc., sweet word ‘were.’ To be and to be willing to remain such—that were the pity. Those who have escaped from the snares of the Devil should bear the past in mind continually, as a motive to avoid sin and foster gratitude.

Berlen. Bib.:

1Co_6:1. The reason why the righteous are often passed by, and the unrighteous are chosen as judges, is because people hope to make something out of the latter.

1Co_6:2. Judicial honors hereafter await those only who have acted justly here, and allowed themselves to be judged.

1Co_6:7. So completely does the Holy Spirit drive nature from her supposed rights, and subject it to patient suffering, yea, to death, that we are not at liberty to maintain our rights arbitrarily, but are bound, everywhere and at all times, to have regard to the jewel of our peace, and see that it be neither injured nor destroyed.

1Co_6:9-11. The unrighteous are all the unregenerate, 1Jn_3:7; Joh_3:3. There are many kinds of sins. Hence, if thou seest another sin, point not thy finger at him. Perhaps thou art implicated in another sin more deeply than he is in this. Remembrance of the past ought to cause perpetual humiliation. To this end we ought to think of our old sins, but for other reasons we ought to forget them. “But,”—“but,”—“but.” O the importance and the preciousness of the change. Gracious acts all go together, though they are distinguishable. If we pray, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner,’ that implies, ‘create within me a clean heart.’ What God hath joined let no man put asunder. Salvation comprises forgiveness, sanctification, redemption, and we can get it in no other way than through the name of Jesus and the power of the Holy Ghost.

Reiger:

1Co_6:2-3.—We must improve the glimpses here allowed into the grander future, in such a way, that even here, amid our small engagements, we may as far as possible be lifted into higher moods. Through selfishness, impatience, anger, greed, the complainant often incurs as much guilt afterwards as the man has who injured him.

Heubner:

1Co_6:1. Every true Christian ought to be a sort of a justice of the peace.

1Co_6:3. It is very natural that the betrayed should judge the betrayer. From a presentiment of this springs the hatred of evil angels against Christians.

1Co_6:5. The lack of wise men in a church is great disgrace.

1Co_6:6. That justice should be enforced by the secular power between those who profess to be governed by law is also a disgrace.

Besser:—If we kept in mind what glory awaits us in the Church, it would prove a sad thing for us to strive with our brethren about mine and thine, and if we were drawn into strife then would the judges find in us peaceable people who respected the decision of the saints.

1Co_6:7-8. Paul says “ye.” Mark then, a little leaven leavens the whole lump! The flagrant immoralities of some did not constrain the Church to mourning, did not move them to the exercise of discipline. A Christian Church, however, is not a mere aggregate of names, but it is the body of one Spirit, composed of many members. Hence the declaration of the Apostle, “ye do wrong,” struck at the whole Church, and stuck in it like an arrow until it acknowledged its own disgrace in bitter repentance.

1Co_6:11. Whatever has been done for us and is to be found in the name of Jesus, that is appropriated to us through the Spirit of our God—that God, who is our God and highest Good in Jesus Christ our Lord.

[F. W. Robertson:—Let us guard against a natural misconception of the Apostle’s meaning. You might think that he meant to say, that the Corinthians should have ecclesiastical instead of civil courts; and for this reason, that churchmen and clergy will decide rightly by a special promise of guidance, and heathen and laymer wrongly. But this has not to do with the case. It is not a question here between ecclesiastical and civil courts, but between law and equity, between litigation and arbitration. The remedy [for offences] is, not more elaborate law, nor cheaper law, nor greater facility for law, but more Christianity, less loud cries about “Rights,” more earnest anxiety on both and all sides to do no wrong].

Footnotes:

[1]1Co_6:2.—The omission of ἤ in the Rec. is feebly sustained. [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin. and several versions insert it.]

[2]1Co_6:5.—Lachmann reads λαλῶ instead of λέγω after B.

[3]1Co_6:5.—̓́ Ενι [according to B. C. L. Cod. Sin.]. The Rec. has ἔστιν which is less authorized [being found only in D. F. though more commonly substituted].

[4]1Co_6:5.—Οὐδὲ εἶς probably genuine. [It is found in D.3 L. Syr. Vulg. and maintained by Wordsworth. The omission of it [in B. C. Cod. Sin.] is to be attributed to oversight, the transcriber passing directly from σοφός to ὅς. The ον̓δείς or ος̓δὲ εἶς before σοφός are critical attempts to restore the text.] [The former is found in B. C. L. Cod. Sin. and the latter in F.]

[5]1Co_6:7.—The Rec. has ἐν ὐμἱν. The ἐν was probably inserted to accord with the meaning: fault, given to ἥττημα [A. B. C. D. L. Cod. Sin. all omit it and it is rejected by Meyer, Alf; Words. Stanley, however, retains it.]

[6]1Co_6:8.—The Rec. has ταν͂τα, which is not by any means so well authorized as τον͂το [which is found in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.] It was changed for the plural probably to conform to the two verbs preceding.

[7]1Co_6:8.—The Rec. has the more common order βασιλεὶαν before θεοῦ. as in 1Co_6:10. [The reverse order is found in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.]

[8]1Co_6:10.—[The order of these two is reversed in D. L., a large number of the cursive MSS. and in the Greek fathers. πλεονέκται οὔτε κλεπται].

[9]1Co_6:10.—The Rec. with Lach. has οὐτε [according to B. D.3 L. But οὔ is found in A. C. Cod. Sin.] But the authorities for οὔτε have the same also before the following words. A. C. Cod. Sin. and the best critical edition, however, read οὐ there likewise.]

[10]1Co_6:10.—The Rec. has οὐ before κληρον which was, perhaps, inserted in accordance with the same in 1Co_6:9.

[11]1Co_6:11.—The variations of ἡμῶν after κνρ and of χριστοῦ after Ἰησοῦ are undoubtedly insertions.

[12][Yet the interpretation which Kling sets aside appears in all the six earlier English versions. Wicklif: “Ordeyne ye the contemptible men that ben in the chirche to deme.” Tyndale: “Take them which are despised in the congregacion, and make them judges.” Cranmer, the same. Geneva: “Them which are least esteemed in the Churche, them I say set in judgment.” Rheims: “The contemptible in the Church set them to judge.” In like manner the Ree version. Conant adopts it also. So, too, Syr. Vulg., most of the Greek Fathers, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Hammond, Stanley, Alford. And certainly this interpretation is one which most readily suggests itself, being most in accordance with the tone of the Apostle’s expostulation, full of lofty irony, and with the order of the words with the designations used, and with the use of ἐὰν with the subj. (see Kühner, § 339, 2 ii. b.), and with the natural sense of καθίζετε: set up. What Paul means to say is: that if they would have trials over such trivial matters (a thing which he supposes they would have, even though they ought not), they ought to set up judges accordingly, not those of highest character, whose destiny was hereafter to judge angels, but persons who were comparatively of no account. This would be dealing with their litigious spirit as it deserved. And if we consider the complaints of Augustine, which Calvin alludes to, in consequence of the necessity he was under of devoting so large a portion of his precious time to secular affairs, we should see what reason the Apostle had for advising that the Corinthians should choose those “least esteemed” for this business].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 6

1. Concerning Disputes before Heathen Courts. (1Co 6:1-7).

2. The Holiness of Believers; Their Bodies the Temples of the Holy Spirit. (1Co 6:8-20).

Instead of settling their disputes amongst themselves, as it becomes the Saints of God, they brought their difficulties before a heathen court. In doing this they had lost sight of the dignity of their calling. The Saints of God are to reign with Christ and share His glory; they shall judge the world and angels in that day. Going to a heathen court to have these matters settled by one who was not a child of God, but unrighteous, was unworthy of them; they were making known their own shame before the world. If they had remembered that coming day of glory, when as Saints they were to participate in the judgment of the world, they would not have acted in such a way. They would have gladly suffered wrong themselves and permitted themselves to be defrauded instead of rushing with their grievances before a heathen court. Mat 18:15-18 shows the true way for believers to settle such matters. They were doing wrong and defrauding their own brethren. In all this they dishonored God and denied their relationship to Him. And these Corinthian failures are today in professing Christendom fully developed.

The unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. He reminds them what some of them had been in their unconverted state. They had practiced the vile things of the flesh, which were so common in Corinth. And connected with this there is a warning. If the little leaven was allowed to work, if they continued in the evil ways they were following, they would surely relapse into their former state. But even more, the Apostle reminds them what the grace of God had done for them in saving them from such a life. They had been translated from the power of darkness into the Kingdom of the Son of His love. “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” The washing has nothing to do with baptism, as some claim. Through regeneration (called in Tit 3:5, “the washing of regeneration”), the believing sinner becomes clean every whit (Joh 13:10). Then he is also sanctified in Christ, set apart unto God. And the holy Spirit takes possession of the believer as His own temple. This is the meaning here of “Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” He is the seal.

Then the question concerning the believer’s body is introduced. A believer is no longer under the law as to meats and foods, as the Jews were. “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not profitable.” A believer is not to be brought under the power of any of these things. He is not in bondage to anything, but is to have perfect liberty. To be a slave to anything, for instance, a habit, would be wrong. Meats are for the belly; they are but temporary and will pass away. “God will bring to nought both it (the belly) and them (the meats).” But the body itself is something different. In the body of the believer the Holy Spirit is the abiding guest, the divine Indweller. The body is therefore for the Lord and the Lord for the body. The body has the promise of redemption. God, who raised up the Lord, will also raise us up by His own power. And the bodies of believers are members of Christ, joined to Himself by the Spirit of God. “For he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit.” And all is in warning against the horrible sin, which was so prominent in Corinth, fornication. The bodies of believers belong to the Lord. They are the temples of the Holy Spirit. Therefore we are not our own. Furthermore, all this has been accomplished by the great redemption price, the price paid upon Calvary’s cross. The body must be yielded to God as a living sacrifice. “For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, which are God’s.”

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (1Co 6:1-7.)

But with no exaction, even of one’s right’s.

We come, now to matters between the saints. The Corinthians were going to law with one another, bringing in the world to witness their sad condition and to set right amongst them the things which it was a shame should be wrong. He asks them if they do not know that the saints shall judge the world. That is, of course, in the coming day of the Lord’s rule over it, but it is for this that we are being trained and educated now, and how could it be possible that those who were on their way to such a place as this could be unfit or unworthy to judge these small matters, matters in the apostle’s estimation of such very small account? Do ye not know, he asks, that we shall judge angels, how much more then matters of this kind? Still, i f judgments were needed as to the things of this life, those practically of no account in the assembly were sufficient for such things as that. He does not, of course, literally mean that they were to choose persons of that character, but that these were matters that did not require even any extraordinary spirituality and were of too little importance to require any great ability of this sort to decide them; but they were exposing their shame before the world. They had better suffer wrong; they had better suffer themselves to be defrauded. There was to be no exaction even of their rights. Grace does not exact. One may say, can we suffer the wrong to go on in the assembly? That is another matter. The question here is entirely of seeking our own things. If the matter is grave enough to touch the assembly, Mat 18:1-35 has given us the rule with regard to it. There the first effort is that which is to be characteristic of our whole course; it is to gain one’s brother. That is, as already said, that which discipline aims at. It may be, in fact, for the moment, impossible to be attained; and then we have the steps needed to place any matter that requires it in the hands of the assembly. Put in their hands, it is to be left there. It is for them, to say as to what will set things straight. Just because they are our own things, we are not to be judges of them. No man was ever thought to be a rightful judge in his own cause, or could take the law, as people say, into his own hands. These are principles which are surely as good for us as they can be in the world at large. They are the result simply of the knowledge, alas, of our poor fallen nature.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 Corinthians Chapter 6

Chapter 6:1-11 treats the subject of wrongs. It was shameful that those who were to judge the world and the angels should be incapable of judging the paltry affairs of this world. Let the least esteemed in the assembly be employed in this service. Rather should they bear the wrong, whereas they did wrong themselves. But the wicked and the unrighteous would assuredly not inherit the kingdom. What a wonderful mixture we have here of astonishing revelations, of a morality that is unchangeable whatever may be the divine supremacy of grace, and of ecclesiastical order and discipline! The assembly is united to Christ. When He shall judge the world and pronounce the doom of the angels, she will be associated with Him and take part in His judgment, for she has His Spirit and His mind. Nothing however that is unrighteous shall enter into that kingdom, for in effect how could evil be judged by any that took pleasure in it? Christians should not go to a worldly tribunal for justice, but have recourse to the arbitration of the brethren-a service which, as entering so little into Christian spirituality, was suited to the weakest among them. Moreover the proper thing was rather to suffer the wrong. Be it as it might, the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom.

Judaism, which took pleasure in a carnal sanctity of outward regulations, and the spirit of the world with conformity to its ways, were the two dangers that threatened the assembly at Corinth-dangers, indeed, which exist for the heart of man at all times and in all places. With regard to meats the rule is simple: perfect liberty, since all is allowed-true liberty, in that we are in bondage to none of these things. Meats and the belly, as in relationship to each other, should both perish; the body has a higher destiny-it is for the Lord, and the Lord for it. God has raised up Christ from the dead, and He will raise us up again by His power. The body belongs to this and not to meats.

But the doctrine that the body is for Christ decided another question, to which the depraved habits of the Corinthians gave rise. All fornication is forbidden. To us, with our present Christian habits of mind, it is a thing of course-to Pagans, new; but the doctrine exalts every subject. Our bodies are the members of Christ. Another truth connected with this is of great importance: if (by union according to the flesh) two were one body, he who is united to the Lord is one spirit. The Spirit whose fulness is in Christ is the same Spirit who dwells in me and unites me to Him. Our bodies are His temples. What a mighty truth when we think of it!

Moreover we are not our own, but were bought with a price-the blood of Christ offered for us. Therefore we ought to glorify God in our bodies, which are His-powerful and universal motive, governing the whole conduct without exception. Our true liberty is to belong to God. All that is for oneself is stolen from the rights of Him who has bought us for His own. All that a slave was, or gained, was the property of his master; he was not the owner of himself. Thus it was with the Christian. Outside that, he is the wretched slave of sin and of Satan-selfishness his rule, and eternal banishment from the source of love his end. Horrible thought! In Christ we are the special objects and the vessels of that love. We have here two mighty motives for holiness: the value of Christ’s blood, at which we are purchased; also the fact that we are the temples of the Holy Ghost.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6:1-11 When serious differences arise between two Christians, they are not to be settled by a secular court, but by other believers.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 6:1. Τολμᾷ, dare) Treason against Christians is denoted, by this high-sounding word.—τὶς, any one) even one single person.—κρίνεσθαι) in the middle voice, that is κρίμα ἔχειν, obtain a judgment, go to law, v. 7.—ἀδίκων, before the unjust) Every unbeliever is unjust; generally so, even as a citizen.—ἐτὶ τῶν ἀγίων, before the saints) Christians. The great privilege of believers was to settle even civil matters among themselves, and the magistrate ought not to interfere at all with private affairs, unless in the case of those who especially apply to him. The heathen magistrates were very indulgent to the Jews; and in this department no difference was hitherto made between the Jews and the Christians.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_6:1. A new section, not connected with what has gone before. Paul starts at once with a question of lively surprise: Dare[872] any one, etc., and so plunges in medium rem.[873] The connections of thought, which some have traced out, are arbitrary inventions. This applies not only to Baurs view (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 10 f.),that it was the damage done to the Christian cause in public opinion, both by the immorality discussed in chap. 5 and by the lawsuits carried on before the heathen, that led the apostle thus to pass from the one subject to the other,but also to the connection which Hofmann seeks to establish between this passage and the censure pronounced upon the insufficient judicial action taken by the church with its members after the occurrence of the case already adverted to. The judicial proceedings now referred to are plainly of quite another kind, not in the way of discipline, but of private lawsuits; and, moreover, as to former judicial action of the church, not merely was it insufficient, but nothing of the sort had taken place at all with respect to the πόρνος. Paul does not employ so much as a ΔΈ, or an ἈΛΛΆ, or any other form of connection, but goes on with epistolary freedom, leaping, as it were, from one point of censure to another.

ΤῚς] any one whate1Co 6:The quite general treatment of the subject which follows shows that no specific individual (Semler) is meant, although it must be left undetermined whether some specially striking case, possibly that of a rich and powerful man (Ewald), may not have given occasion for the apostles sending these admonitions.

πρᾶγμα] lawsuit, matter of dispute. Comp Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1; Demosth. 1120. 26; Josephus, Antt. xiv. 10. 7.

κρίνεσθαι] go to law, litigare; see on Rom_3:4; Wetstein, a[875] Mat_5:40.

ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων] before (Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 469]) the unrighteous; a specially significant designation of the heathen (see on Gal_2:5), as contrasted with the Christians, who are ἅγιοι (see on 1Co_1:2). Chrysostom puts it well: ΟὐΚ ΕἾΠΕΝ· ἘΠῚ ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ (as in 1Co_6:6, where the opposite of ἈΔΕΛΦΌς was required), ἈΛΛʼ ἘΠῚ ΤῶΝ ἈΔΊΚΩΝ, ΛΈΞΙΝ ΘΕῚς Ἧς ΜΆΛΙΣΤΑ ΧΡΕΊΑΝ ΕἾΧΕΝ ΕἸς ΤῊΝ ΠΡΟΚΕΙΜΈΝΗΝ ὙΠΌΘΕΣΙΝ, ὭΣΤΕ ἈΠΟΤΡΈΨΑΙ ΚΑῚ ἈΠΑΓΑΓΕῖΝ. There is indeed a contradictio in adjecto in the κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τ. ἀδίκων! For the Rabbinical prohibitions of going to law before the heathen, see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 472 ff. (e.g. Tanchuma, f. 92. 2 : Statutum est, ad quod omnes Israelitae obligantur, eum, qui litem cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare coram gentibus). The tribunal intended by Paul is not merely that of arbitration, which had passed over from Judaism (see Michaelis, Einl. II. p. 1221 f.; comp Lightfoot, Hor. on 1Co_6:4; Vitringa, de Synag. p. 816 ff.) to Christianity, but his meaning is: instead of carrying on lawsuits against each other before the heathen, they were to adjust their disputes before Christians, which could of course be done only in the way of arbitration[877] (comp 1Co_6:5); according to this, therefore, different forms of the κρίνεσθαι are present to the apostles mind in speaking of the judgment ἘΠῚ Τ. ἈΔ. and ἘΠῚ Τ. ἉΓ.; in the former case, that by legal process; in the latter, that by arbitration through means of διαιτηταί.

Theodoret remarks justly (on 1Co_6:6), that the prohibition of the ΚΡΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΠῚ ΤῶΝ ἈΔΊΚΩΝ is not at variance with Rom_13:1 ff.: Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ἈΝΤΙΤΕΊΝΕΙΝ ΚΕΛΕΎΕΙ ΤΟῖς ἌΡΧΟΥΣΙΝ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤΟῖς ἨΔΙΚΗΜΈΝΟΙς ΝΟΜΟΘΕΤΕῖ ΜῊ ΚΕΧΡῆΣΘΑΙ ΤΟῖς ἌΡΧΟΥΣΙ. ΤῸ ΓᾺΡ ΑἹΡΕῖΣΘΑΙ Ἢ ἈΔΙΚΕῖΣΘΑΙ Ἢ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤΟῖς ὉΜΟΠΊΣΤΟΙς ΔΟΚΙΜΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ Τῆς ΑὐΤῶΝ ἘΞΗΡΤᾶΤΟ ΓΝΏΜΗς.

[872] Bengel says aptly: grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum. Schrader imports an ironical meaning into the word, which is irrelevant. The right interpretation is given by Chrysostom: τόλμης ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ παρανομίας. See as to τολμᾶν, sustinere, non erubescere, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phil. p. 13 D; Jacobs, ad Athen. addit. p. 309. Comp. the proverbial phrase πᾶν τολμᾶν.

[873] It is out of the harmony with the fervid tone of the whole passage, in which question is heaped on question, to understand ver. 1 as affirmative (against Lachmann). Least of all can we agree with Hofmann in taking the words down to ἀδίκων affirmatively, and then regarding κ. οὐχὶ ἐπ. τ. ἁγίων as a query which strikes in there: for ἐπὶ τ. ἀδίκων, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐ. τ. ἅγ., is plainly just the ordinary antithesis of assertion and negation joined together by καὶ οὐ. To make Hofmanns rendering logically tenable, it would be needful that Paul should, instead of κ. οὐχί, have written: καὶ τὶ οὐχί, and why not before the saints?

[875] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[877] Hence this passage does not at all run counter to the injunction to obey magistrates. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417.

1Co_6:1-11. The readers are not to go to law before the heathen (1Co_6:1-6); and generally, they are, instead of contending with one another, rather to suffer wrong than to do it, bearing in mind that the unrighteous shall not become partakers in the Messianic kingdom (1Co_6:7-10), and that they, as Christians, have become pure, holy, and righteous (1Co_6:11).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 6:1-6 . § 17. LAW-SUITS IN HEATHEN COURTS. Beside the πόρνος , amongst those to be excommunicated at Cor [887] , stood the πλεονέκτης (1Co 5:11 ); fraud and robbery were only less rife than licentiousness; and this element of corruption, along with the other, had reappeared within the Church (1Co 6:8 ). Instead of being repressed by timely correction, the evil had grown rank; in several instances aggrieved Christian parties had carried their complaints before the civil Courts, to the scandal of the Church and to Paul’s high indignation. Two links of thought connect chh. 5. and 6.: (1) the kindred nature of sins of impurity and of covetousness , both prevalent at Cor [888] , both destructive of society; (2) the lamentable lack of Church discipline (1Co 5:12 ), which enabled these mischiefs to gather head.

[887] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[888] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

1Co 6:1 . Τολμᾷ τις ὑμῶν κ . τ . λ .; “Does any one of you dare?”etc. “notatur læsa majestas Christianorum” (Bg [889] ): τολμᾶν , sustinere, non erubescere . This also was matter of common knowledge, like the crime of 1Co 5:1 . The abrupt interrog. marks the outburst of indignant feeling. You treat the Church, the seat of the Holy Spirit (1Co 3:16 f.), as though it were without authority or wisdom; you take your case from the highest court to the lowest! So the appellant is first censured; in 1Co 6:4 the whole Church comes in for blame. Πρᾶγμα ( res, negotium ), κρίνεσθαι (mid [890] ; see parls.), ἐπὶ with gen [891] , ἐν (1Co 6:2 ), κριτήριον (1Co 6:2 ), καθίζω (1Co 6:4 ), and perhaps ἥττημα (1Co 6:7 ), are all in this passage technical legal expressions. Οἱ ἄδικοι the term applied by the Jews ( cf. Gal 2:15 ), and then by Christians, to the heathen marks the action censured as self-stultifying to seek for right from “the unrighteous”! P. himself appealed to Roman justice, but never in matters “between brother and brother,” nor in the way of accusing his injurers (Act 28:19 ); only in defence of his work. Οἱ ἅγιοι indicates by contrast the moral dignity of Christians (see 1Co 1:2 , and note), a judicial attribute; cf. sanctitas fori (Quintilian, xi., 3. 58). There exists a similar Rabbinical inhibition: “It is forbidden to bring a matter of right before idolatrous judges.… Whosoever goeth before them with a law-suit is impious, and does the same as though he blasphemed and cursed; and hath lifted his hand against the law of Moses our Teacher, blessed be he!” ( Shulchan aruch, Choshen hammishpat , 29). The Roman Government allowed the Jews liberty of internal jurisdiction; the Bethdin ( house of judgment ) was as regular a part of the Israelite economy as the Beth-keneseth ( synagogue ). In Rom 13:1 ff. P. regards the power of the State from a diff [892] point of view.

[889] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[890] middle voice.

[891] genitive case.

[892] difference, different, differently.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–11. THE WAY TO SETTLE DISPUTES IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The principle is here laid down which is to guide Christians in their lawsuits. Disputes about property are treated by the Apostle as matters of the most trifling import. To call in the unbelievers to settle the disputes of Christian brethren was an act of audacity almost beyond the belief of the Apostle (1Co 6:1), and in marked contrast to the feeling prevalent in the Christian Church at its first foundation (Act 4:32). It were far better for a Christian to suffer the utmost wrong, than to bring such a reproach upon the name of Christ (1Co 6:7). The disputes of Christians were therefore settled by private arbitration, a custom which continued until Christianity was formally established as the religion of the Roman Empire. In the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, which were drawn up in the second or early in the third century, we find a provision that these private courts of arbitration should be held early in the week, that any disputes which might arise might be set right before the following Sunday. Such courts of arbitration have given place to the Christian courts of law, before which it often becomes necessary for a Christian to plead, lest violent or covetous men should dissolve the framework of society. Yet the principle of this passage should guide us still, of regarding mutual love as of more importance than ‘the things that pertain to this life,’ of preferring rather to suffer wrong than to appeal to the law, unless some more important matter is at stake than our individual loss or inconvenience.

1. τολμᾷ. The word is a strong one, expressive of what St Paul felt to be the grave evil of a contentious spirit in Christian men.

τις. Some particular person or persons are in St Paul’s mind. It is not an imaginary case. See 1Co 6:6. But we may observe how carefully St Paul avoids naming any one throughout the Epistle.

κρίνεσθαι. The middle has a reciprocal sense, like βουλεύεσθαι and συντίθεσθαι. See Winer, Gr. Gram. § 38.

ἀδίκων. Chrysostom remarks that whereas St Paul has this word here, he uses ἀπίστων in 1Co 6:6. Was not this in order to imply that justice was not to be expected from the heathen? See notes on ch. 1Co 1:30 and on 1Co 6:9.

καὶ οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων. Cf. Mat 18:17, where we have a precept of Jesus Christ concerning the settlement of differences in the Christian Church.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

6:1–11.] Prohibition to settle their differ ces in the legal courts of the heathen: rather should these be adjudged among themselves (1–6): but far better not to quarrel—rather to suffer wrong, waiting for justice to be done at the coming of the Lord, when all who do wrong shall be excluded form his kingdom (6–11).

1.] On τολμᾷ, Dares …, Bengel remarks, “Grandi verbo notatur læsa majestas Christianorum.”

τις, no particular individual, but any one: for he proceeds in the plur., vv. 4, 7.

πρᾶγμα] So ref. and Demosth. κατὰ Στεφ. α. p. 1120, τῷ μὲν υἱεῖ τῷ τούτου πολλῶν πραγμάτων ὄντων οὐ παρέστη πώποτε οὐδʼ ἐβοήθησεν;

κρίνεσθαι, reff., to go to law. So Eur. Med. 609, ὡς οὐ κρινοῦμαι τῶνδε σοὶ τὰ πλείονα,—and Anthol. ii. 30, δυσκώφῳ δύσκωφος ἐκρίνετο, καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἦν ὁ κριτὴς τούτων τῶν δύο κωφότερος. Wetst. on Mat 5:40.

ἐπί (reff.), before, as judges.

τῶν ἀδίκων] οὐκ εἶπεν, ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπίστων, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων, λέξιν θείς, ἧς μάλιστα χρείαν εἶχεν εἰς τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν, ὥστε ἀποτρέψαι κ. ἀπαγαγεῖν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ περὶ δίκης αὐτῷ ὁ λόγος ἦν, οἱ δικαζόμενοι δὲ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐπιζητοῦσιν, ὡς τὸ πολλὴν εἶναι πρόνοιαν τοῦ δικαίου παρὰ τοῖς δικάζουσιν, ἐντεῦθεν αὐτοὺς ἀποτρέπει, μονονουχὶ λέγων Ποῖ φέρῃ καὶ τί ποιεῖς, ἄνθρωπε, τοὐναντίον πάσχων ὧν ἐπιθυμεῖς, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν δικαίων τυχεῖν ἀδίκοις ἐπιτρέπων ἀνθρώποις; Chrys. Hom. xvi. p 137.

The Rabbinical prohibitions against going to law before Gentiles may be seen in Wetst.: e.g. “Statutum est, ad quod omnes Israelitæ obligantur, eum qui litem cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare coram gentilibus.” Tanchuma, xcii. 2.

καὶ οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τ. ἁγίων] The Apostle does not mean that the Christians had their courts of law, but that they should submit their differences to courts of arbitration among themselves. Such courts of arbitration were common among the Jews. In Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 17, there is a decree by which the Jews of Sardis are allowed the use of a σύνοδος ἰδία … καὶ τόπος ἴδιος, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγματα κ. τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι.

Theodoret shews, ὡς οὐκ ἐναντία ταῦτα τοῖς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους γραφεῖσιν (Rom 13:1 ff.):—οὐ γὰρ ἀντιτείνειν κελεύει τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἠδικημένοις νομοθετεῖ μὴ κεχρῆσθαι τοῖς ἄρχουσι. See Stanley in loc., who thinks the existence of such courts is here implied. But his support of his view from the Ap. Constt. and the Clementines, cir. a.d. 150, would only go to shew that the Apostle’s injunction here had been obeyed, and that those courts were the result.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6:1-11. LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS

The Apostle passes on to a third matter for censure, and in discussing it he first treats of the evil and its evil occasion (1-8), and then, in preparation for what is to follow, points out that all unrighteousness is a survival from a bad past which the Corinthians ought to have left behind them (9-11).

1-8. The Evil and Its Evil Occasion

How can you dare to go to law with one another in heathen caurts? If there must be suits, let Christian judge Christian.

1 The subject of judging brings me to another matter. Is it possible that, when one of you has a dispute with a fellow-Christian, he takes upon himself to bring the dispute before a heathen tribunal, instead of bringing it before believers. Or is it that you do not know that, at the Last Day, believers will sit with Christ to judge the world? And if the world is to be judged hereafter at your bar, are you incompetent to serve in the pettiest tribunals? Do not you know that we are to sit in judgment on angels? After that, one need hardly mention things of daily life. If, then, you have questions of daily life to be decided, do you really take heathens, who are of no account to those who are in the Church, and set them to judge you? 5 It is to move you to shame that I am speaking like this. Have things come to such a pass that, among the whole of you, there is not a single person who is competent to arbitrate between one Christian and another, but that, on the contrary, Christian goes to law with Christian, and that too before unbelievers? 7 Nay, at the very outset, there is a terrible defect in your Christianity that you have lawsuits at all with one another. Why not rather accept injury? Why not rather submit to being deprived? But, so far from enduring wrong, what you do is this; you wrong and deprive other people, and those people your fellow-Christians.

The subject of going to law before heathen tribunals is linked to the subject discussed in the previous chapter by the reference to the question of judgment (5:12, 13).* The moral sense of a Christian community, which ought to make itself felt in judging offenders within its own circle, ought still more to suffice for settling disputes among its members, without recourse to heathen courts, whose judges stand presumably on a lower ethical level than Christians. But there is no real argumentative connexion with the preceding section. The Apostle has finished two points in his indictment, and he now passes on to another.

The Apostle’s principles with regard to secular and heathen magistrates are perfectly consistent. In Rom_13 he inculcates the attitude of a good citizen, which is not only obedience to law, but the recognition of the magistrate as God’s minister. This carries with it submission to the law as administered by the courts, and acceptance of the authority of the courts in criminal cases. St Paul had had experience of the protection of Roman Justice (Act 18:12 f., Act 25:16), and he himself appealed to Caesar. But to invoke the courts to decide disputes between Christians was quite another matter; and he lays it down here that to do so is a confession of the failure of that justice which ought to reign in the Christian Society. ‘Obey the criminal courts, but do not go out of your way to invoke the civil courts,’ is a fair, if rough, summary of his teaching.

1. Τολμᾷ τις ὑμῶν. We know nothing of the facts, but it is clear from v. 8 that the Apostle has no merely isolated case in view: τολμᾷ grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum (Beng.); Rom 15:18. The word is an argument in itself; ‘How can you dare, endure, bring yourself to?’

πρᾶγμα. In the forensic sense; ‘a cause for trial,’ ‘a case,’ Joseph. Ant. xiv. x. 7.

τὸν ἕτερον. Not ‘another’ (AV.), but ‘his neighbour’ (RV.), ‘his fellow’ (10:24, 14:17; Rom 2:1; Gal 6:4).

κρίνεσθαι. Middle; ‘go to law,’ ‘seek for judgment.’ Cf. κριθῆναι (Mat 5:40; Ecc 6:10). The question comes with increased force after 5:12, 13. ‘It is no business of ours to judge the heathen: and are we to ask them to judge us?’

ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων. ‘Before the unrighteous’.* The term is not meant to imply that there was small chance of getting justice in a heathen court; St Paul’s own experience had taught him otherwise. The term reflects, not on Roman tribunals, but on the pagan world to which they belonged. He perhaps chose the word rather than ἀπίστων, in order to suggest the paradox of seeking justice among the unjust. The Rabbis taught that Jews must not carry their cases before Gentiles, and we may be sure that it was in the Greek majority at Corinth, and not in the Jewish minority, that this evil prevailed.* Greeks were fond of litigation, φιλοδικοί (Arist. Rhet. II. xxiii. 23), and as there were no Christian courts they must enter heathen tribunals if they wanted to go to law. See Edwards. For ἐπί see 2Co 7:14; Mar 13:9; Act 25:9.

καὶ οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγίων. He does not mean that Christian courts ought to be instituted, but that Christian disputants should submit to Christian arbitration.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

III. Lawsuits. 6:1-11

The subject of discipline, though connected with the domain of ecclesiastical life, trenched on the sphere of moral questions. We come now to the subjects which belong exclusively to the latter sphere.

As the apostle had dealt with discipline, first from the standpoint of the special case which had raised the question, then, more generally, he acts in a similar way in regard to the subject which is now to follow. He treats of lawsuits between Christians,—1. in 1Co 6:1-6, from the special standpoint of recourse had to heathen tribunals; and 2. in 1Co 6:7-11, from the more general viewpoint of the lack of righteousness and charity which such conflicts between brethren imply.

Meyer alleges that there is no logical relation between this subject and the preceding; he founds on the asyndeton between the last verse of chap. 5 and our 1Co 6:1. But the absence of any particle fitted to connect these two verses is much rather the evidence of a very profound bond of feeling between the two passages. For by this form the second becomes, as it were, a reaffirmation of the ideas expounded in the first. And, in point of fact, does not Paul here, as in the former passage, combat in this proud Church the total lack of care for its own dignity before God and men? “Not only do ye not judge those whom you have a mission to judge (them that are within); but, moreover, ye go to have yourselves judged by those who are beneath you (them that are without)!” The basis of these two passages is therefore the same: it is the idea of the judicial competency of the Church in relation to its own members, but applied to two wholly different sins. Edwards understands the thing nearly in the same way. “He has just expounded the greatness and power of the Church; and now he asks if one could be found among them who would dare to do violence to the majesty of Christ who dwells in it.”

Vv. 1. “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?”

The word τολμᾶ, dares he, heads this passage, exactly because it appeals vigorously to Christian dignity: “What! there is one who has this miserable courage!” One needs courage to degrade himself. The pronoun τίς, some one, does not mean that there are many who are in this case; but there are too many if there is one. A single such case casts reproach on the whole Church. The Jews, who had the feeling of their theocratic nobility, had not recourse in their litigations to heathen tribunals; a system of arbitration established among them decided such questions; and the Corinthians had not Christian honour enough to rise to the same level!

For the moment the apostle leaves out of account the fact of the κρίνεσθαι, getting judged, having a suit; he will return to it, 1Co 6:6. Here he fixes solely on the way in which these affairs are treated at Corinth.

The article τόν, the, before ἕτερον, other, serves strongly to individualize the adverse party in every case.

The heathen, of whom the official judges form part, are designated, not as usual by the term ἄπιστοι (those who do not believe), but by the term ἄδικοι, unjust. The apostle would make palpable the contradiction there is in going to ask justice of those who are themselves devoid of justice. The prep. ἐπί here signifies in presence of; as in the phrases ἐπὶ δικαστῶν, τοῦ δικαστηρίου (Plato, Demosthenes). Christians receive the title of honour οἳ ἅγιοι, the saints. They are people whom a Divine consecration has profoundly separated from the unjust and sinful world, and who ought therefore to possess within them the standard of justice. Had not Daniel seen the judgment given to the saints of the Most High? (1Co 7:22).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter VI

This chapter consists of two distinct paragraphs. The first, 1Co_6:1-11, relates to lawsuits before heathen magistrates. The second, 1Co_6:12-20, to the abuse which some had made of the principle, All things are lawful.

On Going to Law before the Heathen 1Co_6:1-11

Paul expresses surprise that any Christian should prosecute a fellow Christian before a heathen judge, 1Co_6:1. If Christians are destined to judge the world, and even angels, they may surely settle among themselves their worldly affairs, 1Co_6:2, 1Co_6:3. If they had such suits must they appoint those whom the church could not esteem to decide them? Was there not one man among themselves able to act as a judge? 1Co_6:4-6. It was a great evil that they had such lawsuits. It would be better to submit to injustice, 1Co_6:7. Instead, however, of submitting to wrong, they committed it, 1Co_6:8. He solemnly assures them that the unjust, or rapacious, or corrupt should not inherit the kingdom of God, 1Co_6:9, 1Co_6:10. They had been such, but as Christians they were washed from these defilements, and justified through Christ and by his Spirit, 1Co_6:11.

1Co_6:1

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

The third evil in the church of Corinth which the apostle endeavors to correct, was the prosecuting legal suits before heathen judges. There was no necessity for this practice. The Roman laws allowed the Jews to settle their disputes about property by arbitration among themselves. And the early Christians, who were not distinguished as a distinct class from the Jews, had no doubt the same privilege. It is not necessary, however, to assume that the apostle has reference here to that privilege. It was enough that these civil suits might be arranged without the disgraceful spectacle of Christian suing Christian before heathen magistrates. The Rabbins say, It is a statute which binds all Israelites, that if one Israelite has a cause against another, it must not be prosecuted before the Gentiles. Eisenmengers Entdeckt. Judenth. 2. p. 427.

Dare any of you? Is any one so bold as thus to shock the Christian sense of propriety? Having a matter. The Greek phrase (πρᾶγμα ἔχειν) means to have a suit, which is obviously the sense here intended. To go to law before the unjust. It is plain that by the unjust are meant the heathen. But why are they so called? As the terms holy and righteous are often used in a technical sense to designate the professed people of God without reference to personal character; so the terms sinners and unjust are used to designate the heathen as distinguished from the people of God. The Jews as a class were holy, and the Gentiles were unholy; though many of the latter were morally much better than many of the former. In Gal_2:15 Paul says to Peter, We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles; meaning thereby simply that they were not Gentiles. The reason why the heathen as such are called the unjust, or sinners, is that according to the Scriptures the denial of the true God, and the worship of idols, is the greatest unrighteousness and therefore the heathen, because heathen, are called the unrighteous. The word unjust is too limited a word to answer fully to the Greek term (ἄδικος), which in its scriptural sense means wicked, not conformed to the Law of God. In this verse the opposite term, saints, or the holy, designates Christians as a class; and, therefore, the unjust must mean the heathen as a class. The complaint against the Corinthians was not that they went to law before unjust judges, but that they appealed to heathen judges. It is true their being heathen proved them to be unrighteous in the scriptural sense of the term; but it was not their moral character, so much as their religious status, that was the ground of the complaint. It was indeed not to be expected that men governed by heathen laws and principles of morals, would be as fair and just as those governed by Christian principles; but what Paul complained of was, not that the Corinthians could not get justice at the hands of heathen magistrates, but that they acted unworthily of their dignity as Christians in seeking justice from such a source. Paul himself appealed to Cesar. It was, therefore, no sin in his eyes to seek justice from a heathen judge, when it could not otherwise be obtained. But it was a sin and a disgrace in his estimation for Christians to appeal to heathen magistrates to settle disputes among themselves.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if he said, Are ye become so impudent, that you are not ashamed to make the Gospel a laughingstock to profane men?

Before the unjust.

He addeth that he doth not forbid that one neighbor may go to law with another, if need so require, but yet under holy judges.

The third question is of civil judgments: Whether it be lawful for one faithful to draw another faithful before the judgment seat of an infidel? He answereth that it is not lawful, for offense sake, for it is not evil of itself.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER VI.

The Corinthians are reproved for their litigious disposition;

brother going to law with brother, and that before the

heathen, 1-6.

They should suffer wrong rather than do any, 7, 8.

No unrighteous person can enter into the glory of God, 9, 10.

Some of the Corinthians had been grievous sinners, but God had

saved them, 11.

Many things may be lawful which are not at all times expedient,

12.

Meats are for the belly, and the belly for meats; but the body

is not for uncleanness, 13.

Christ's resurrection a pledge of ours, 14.

The bodies of Christians are members of Christ, and must not be

defiled, 15-17.

He that commits fornication sins against his own body, 18.

Strong dissuasives from it, 19, 20.

NOTES ON CHAP. VI.

Verse 1. Dare any of you, c.] From the many things that are here reprehended by the apostle, we learn that the Christian Church at Corinth was in a state of great imperfection, notwithstanding there were very many eminent characters among them. Divided as they were among themselves, there was no one person who possessed any public authority to settle differences between man and man therefore, as one party would not submit to the decisions of another, they were obliged to carry their contentions before heathen magistrates; and probably these very subjects of litigations arose out of their ecclesiastical divisions. The thing, and this issue of it, the apostle strongly reprehends.

Before the unjust, and not before the saints?] The heathen judges were termed δικασται from their presumed righteousness in the administration of justice; here the apostle, by a paronomasia, calls them αδικοι, unrighteous persons; and it is very likely that at Corinth, where such corruption of manners reigned, there was a great perversion of public justice; and it is not to be supposed that matters relative to the Christians were fairly decided. The Christians the apostle terms αγιοι saints, which they were all by profession; and doubtless many were so in spirit and in truth.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Here, he begins to reprove another fault among the Corinthians — an excessive fondness for litigation, which took its rise from avarice. Now, this reproof consists of two parts. The first is, that by bringing their disputes before the tribunals of the wicked, they by this means made the gospel contemptible, and exposed it to derision. The second is, that while Christians ought to endure injuries with patience, they inflicted injury on others, rather than allow themselves to be subjected to any inconvenience. Thus, the first part is particular: the other is general.

1. Dare any of you This is the first statement — that, if any one has a controversy with a brother, it ought to be decided before godly judges, and that it ought not to be before those that are ungodly. If the reason is asked, I have already said, that it is because disgrace is brought upon the gospel, and the name of Christ is held up as it were to the scoffings of the ungodly. For the ungodly, at the instigation of Satan, are always eagerly on the watch for opportunities of finding occasion of calumny against the doctrine of godliness. Now believers, when they make them parties in their disputes, seem as though they did on set purpose furnish them with a handle for reviling. A second reason may be added — that we treat our brethren disdainfully, when we of our own accord subject them to the decisions of unbelievers.

But here it may be objected: “As it belongs to the office of the magistrate, and as it is peculiarly his province to administer justice to all, and to decide upon matters in dispute, why should not even unbelievers, who are in the office of magistrate, have this authority, and, if they have it, why are we prevented from maintaining our rights before their tribunals?” I answer, that Paul does not here condemn those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, as when a person is summoned to a court; but those who, of their own accord, bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as it were, through means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to employ another remedy. It is wrong, therefore, to institute of one’s own accord a law-suit against brethren before unbelieving judges. If, on the other hand, you are summoned to a court, there is no harm in appearing there and maintaining your cause.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

VI.

(1) Dare any of you.—Having rebuked the Corinthian Christians for any attempt to judge those who are outside the Church—i.e., the heathen—St. Paul now insists, on the other hand, on the importance of their not submitting their affairs for decision to the heathen tribunals. Jewish converts would have more easily understood that they should settle disputes among themselves, as the Roman power had, as we learn from Gallio’s remarks (Act_18:14-15), given this liberty to the Jews. The Gentile converts, however, would have been naturally inclined to continue to bring disputes before the tribunals with which they had been so familiar in a proverbially litigious condition of society before their conversion. We can well imagine how detrimental to the best interests of Christianity it would be for the Christian communion, founded as it was on principles of unity and love, to be perpetually, through the hasty temper and weakness of individual members, held up to the scorn of the heathen, as a scene of intestine strife. Repeated lawsuits before heathen judges would have had the further evil effect of practically obliterating the broad line of demarcation which then really existed between the principles of Roman jurisprudence, and the loftier Christian conceptions of self-sacrifice and charity by which the followers of Jesus Christ should, in accordance with His teaching, control their life. These considerations rendered necessary the warnings which the Apostle here commences with the emphatic word “Dare,” of which it has been well said (Bengel), “Treason against Christians is denoted by this high-sounding word.”

Unjust . . . . saints.—These words convey here no essentially moral ideas. They merely signify respectively “heathen” and “members of the Christian Church.” These phrases remind us that the state of things when St. Paul wrote this was entirely different from what exists in any Christian country now. The teaching has nothing whatever to do with the adjudication of the courts of a Christian country. The cases to which St. Paul’s injunctions would be applicable in the present day would be possible only in a heathen country. If, for example, in India there existed heathen tribunals, it would certainly be wrong, and a source of grave scandal, for native Christians to submit questions between themselves for decision to such courts, instead of bringing them before the legal tribunals established by Christian England. It is not probable that at so early a period there were any regular and recognised tribunals amongst the Christians, and certainly their decisions could scarcely have had any legal force. There is, however, historical evidence of the existence of such in the middle of the second century. The principles here laid down would naturally have led to their establishment. (See 1Co_5:4.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another,...., Any thing in difference, an action, cause, or suit. The apostle having dispatched the affair of the incestuous person, and blamed this church for their conduct therein: and having given them instructions what they should do, proceeds to lay before them another evil among them he had to complain of; which was, when any difference arose among them about their worldly concerns, they would

go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints; a method of proceeding condemned by the Jews, who would not suffer any causes of theirs to be tried before Gentiles, only before Israelites; their canon runs thus (u),

"he that tries a cause before the judges of the Gentiles, and before their tribunals, although their judgments are as the judgments of the Israelites, lo, this is an ungodly man; and it is as if he blasphemed and reproached, and lift up his hand against the law of Moses our master, as it is said, Exo 21:1 now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them, , "and not before the Gentiles"; , "and not before idiots", private or illiterate men.''

They looked upon such an action as bad as profaning the name of God; hence they say (w),

"we must not try a cause in the courts of the Gentiles, for they come from the strength of judgment; this is Esau an hairy man, for they have no concord nor mercy--and he that comes before thee , "profanes the name of God", who is gracious and merciful, and honours the name of an idol--wherefore he that brings a cause before the Gentiles, is the occasion of spreading the property of judgment in the world----therefore let a cause be tried before the Israelites, for they are the secret of mercy, and not before the Gentiles, nor before idiots:''

they affirm (x) it to be a greater sin than murder, and that not only profanations of the name of God, but rapine and violence are comprehended in it; and that to give evidence in an Heathen court against an Israelite, deserves excommunication; for so it is said, (y).

"he that bears witness against an Israelite , "in the courts of the Gentiles", and by his testimony gets money from him, which is not according to the judgment of the Israelites, they excommunicate him until he repays it.''

Again (z).

"it is forbidden to order causes in the courts of (the rest of the nations) idolaters, for they have no part in the side of our faith.''

The apostle here dissuades from this practice, of going to law before Heathen magistrates, not only from its being an imprudent, but an impudent, "daring", rash and adventurous action; and seems surprised that any should attempt it, when it must unavoidably expose their weaknesses and faults to their enemies; nor could they expect justice to be done them by men of such a character, as "unjust", who neither feared God, nor regarded men; were not only destitute of righteousness, but filled with all unrighteousness, and had not so much as the principles of common justice and equity in them; when on the contrary, from the saints, men who have the principles of grace and holiness wrought in them, and live soberly, righteously, and godly, who have the fear of God before their eyes, and upon their hearts; they might reasonably conclude, were matters brought before them, they would be adjusted according to judgment and truth, without exposing the sin and weakness of any party to the world.

(u) Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 26. sect. 7. Vid. T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 38. 2. (w) R. Abraham Seba in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 80. 4. (x) R. Bechai in Kad Hakkemach, fol. 21. 4. apud Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. col. 1666. (y) Maimon. Talmud Tora, c. 6. sect. 14. (z) Zohar in Exod. fol. 103. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Ver. 1. Go to law before the unjust] All unbelievers are, 1. Void of Christ’s righteousness imputed; 2. Of true civil righteousness, as being self-seekers in all. 3. They oppress the saints, and draw them before the judgment seats, Jas 2:6, where they are so ill dealt with oftentimes, that they come to be of Themistocles’ mind, who professed, that if two ways were showed him, one to hell, and the other to the bar, he would choose that which went to hell, and forsake the other.

And not before the saints] Christians first brought their causes before the bishops to be judged. And hence grew their power (as Paraeus noteth), which the Christian emperors first would not, and afterwards could not, take away from them. This raised papacy and prelacy to such a height, they would be princes as well as bishops.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dare any of you - The reasons why the apostle introduced this subject here may have been:

That he had mentioned the subject of judging 1Co 5:13, and that naturally suggested the topic which is here introduced; and, This might have been a prevailing evil in the church of Corinth, and demanded correction. The word “dare” here implies that it was inconsistent with religion, and improper. “can you do it; is it proper or right; or do you presume so far to violate all the principles of Christianity as to do it.”

Having a matter - A subject of litigation; or a suit. There may be differences between people in regard to property and right, in which there shall be no blame on either side. They may both be desirous of having it equitably and amicably adjusted. It is not a difference between people that is in itself wrong, but it is the spirit with which the difference is adhered to, and the unwillingness to have justice done that is so often wrong.

Against another - Another member of the congregation. A Christian brother. The apostle here directs his reproof against the “plaintiff,” as having the choice of the tribunal before which he would bring the cause.

Before the unjust - The pagan tribunals; for the word “unjust” here evidently stands opposed to the saints. The apostle does not mean that they were always unjust in their decisions, or that equity could in no case be hoped from them, but that they were classed in that division of the world which was different from the saints, and is synonymous with unbelieveRS, as opposed to believers.

And not before the saints - Before Christians. Can you not settle your differences among yourselves as Christians, by leaving the cause to your brethren, as arbitrators, instead of going before pagan magistrates? The Jews would not allow any of their causes to be brought before the Gentile courts. Their rule was this, “He that tries a cause before the judges of the Gentiles, and before their tribunals, although their judgments are as the judgments of the Israelites, so this is an ungodly man,” etc. Maimon, Hilch, Sanhedrin, chapter 26 section 7. They even looked upon such an action as bad as profaning the name of God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Go to law before the unjust. St. Paul here dissuades the new Christians from carrying their differences and causes about their temporal concerns before judges who were infidels, especially seeing the saints and the elect shall one day judge, that is, condemn all the wicked, and even the apostate angels, by approving the sentence which Christ shall pronounce against them at the day of judgment. (Witham) --- It was not unusual in the primitive ages, and even under Christian emperors, for the Catholics to refer their disputes to the bishop, and to abide by his decision, as Possidius informs us, in the life of St. Augustine. (Estius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The apostle having already sharply reflected upon this church for their pride, and contentions, and divisions, (which were branches from that root), and for their vilifying him who was their spiritual father, and magnifying their instructors above him, as also for their looseness in their church discipline; he cometh in this chapter to another thing, viz. their going to law before pagan judges; for such was the misery of those times, that they had no other, though some think that they might have had, the pagan persecutions being as yet not begun. The apostle speaks of this as a thing which he wondered that they durst be guilty of, that they should be no more tender of the glory of God in the reputation of the Christian religion, and should not rather choose arbitrators amongst the members of their church, to hear and determine such differences as arose amongst them, than give pagans an occasion to reproach the Christian religion for the contentions and feuds of Christians. The reputation of the gospel and the professors of it being the thing for which Paul was here concerned, and upon the account of which he thus speaketh; it becometh Christians yet to consider, whether what he saith concerneth not them, where either the judges, or the generality of the auditors in such judgments, may probably reproach religion, or that way of God which they own, for their trivial and uncharitable contentions.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 1-11. Litigation before heathen courts forbidden.

Dare any of you? rather, Dare any one of you? It is in St. Paul"s view an audacious defiance of Christian duties to seek from the heathen the justice due from brother to brother. A matter; some ground of civil dispute. Against another; i.e. against another Christian. When one of the litigants was a heathen, Christians were allowed to go before heathen law courts, because no other remedy was possible. Go to law before the unjust. The "unjust" is here used for "Gentiles," because it at once suggests a reason against the dereliction of Christian duty involved in such a step. How "unjust" the pagans were in the special sense of the word, the Christians of that day had daily opportunities of seeing; and in a more general sense, the Gentiles were "sinners". (Mat_26:45) Even the Jews were bound to settle their civil disputes before their own tribunals. The ideal Jew was jashar, or "the upright man," and Jews could not consistently seek integrity from those who were not upright. A fortiori, Christians ought not to do so. Before the saints. All Christians were ideally "saints," just as the heathen were normally "unjust." If Christians went to law with one another before the heathen, they belied their profession of mutual love, caused scandal, and were almost necessarily tempted into compliance with heathen customs, even to the extent of recognizing idols. Our Lord had already laid down the rule that "brothers" ought to settle their quarrels among themselves. (Mat_18:15-17)

Vers. 1-8.

The ideal Church a tribunal.

any of you, having a matter against another," etc.? In our sketch on the preceding verses we looked on the true Church as a feast. Here we have to look on it as a tribunal, a court of judicature, where disputes are to be settled and grievances redressed. It would appear that questions arose among the Corinthian Christians that required settlement questions of wrong done to persons or to property, and that too the litigious spirit was so rife in their midst that they took their grievances to the heathen courts. For this the apostle reproves them. "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?" Three remarks about the ideal Church as a tribunal.

I IT IS SUPERIOR TO OTHER TRIBUNALS ON THE EARTH.

1. It is a court formed of morally righteous men. This is implied in the words, "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Saints, or just men, form the tribunal. In worldly courts of judicature men are judged by legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Not so in this court. It is a court of equity,

2. a court that tries cases not by statutory precepts, nor by ecclesiastical laws, but by scriptural principles, and these principles as they arc embodied in the teaching of him who delivered the Sermon on the mount. The true Church is his representative and administrator.

3. It is a court whose jurisdiction is universal. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" In many ways men of Christly lives are judging the world now. Their ideas of right and wrong, between man and man, and man and God, form that standard of character to which the consciences of men are constantly appealing, and to which they are forced to bow. All men at last wilt be judged by the character of Christ, and the Church is the representative of that character. "The words I say unto you, they shall judge you in the last day." Not only does this Church tribunal judge the world, but judges angels also. "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" Redeemed humanity is in some respects higher than angelic natures. It has passed through greater changes and is brought into closer connection with the Divine. They who have in them the spirit of absolute justice in the highest measure are the best judges of character. In modern courts this spirit is often very feeble, and in some cases extinct. Hence the sad blunderings about the interpretation of statutes and the decisions of judges. But the spirit of absolute justice reigns in the true Church.

II IT IS A TRIBUNAL FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES. Paul intimates that it is to judge disputes on the "smallest matters," and of "things pertaining to this life." These expressions seem to comprehend all disputes not merely religious, but secular; not only disputes on great subjects, but disputes on minor subjects as well. The instinct of Christly justice which inspires it peers into the heart of all moral conduct. It has an "anointing from the Holy One, by which it knows all things." The more spiritually pure a man is the more readily will he detect the wrong. Only a few years ago some of our judges occupied twelve mouths or more, at an enormous expense to the nation, in order to find out whether a man was an impostor or not. To a mind full of moral justice an impostor is detected instinctively and at once. No logic can read the hidden principles of a man"s heart. Christ knew "what was in man," and those highly imbued with his Spirit are to some extent gifted with the same insight.

III DISPUTANTS WHO WILL NOT HAVE THEIR CASES SETTLED IN THIS COURT ARE JUSTLY LIABLE TO REPROACH.

1. Reference to another court is unwise. "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in

2. the Church." The meaning is that any other court to which the case is taken is of no account in the estimation of the Church it is a morally inferior institution. The tribunal of man in comparison to Christ"s tribunal is a truly contemptible thing. You Christians degrade yourselves by taking disputes to such tribunals. "I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wine man among you?" It is a shame to you to have your disputes carried to such tribunals, a shame that you cannot settle your disputes among yourselves, that "brother should go to law with brother, before the unbelievers.

3. Reference to another court is wrong. "Now therefore, there is utterly a fault a defect among you, because ye go to law one with another." Better than to do this, better than in go to a worldly tribunal to settle your disputes, better you should suffer wrong than take your grievance into the worldly courts. "The Church has principles," says Robertson, "according to which all such matters may be set at rest. And the difference between the worldly court of justice and the Christian court of arbitration is a difference of diametrical opposition. Law says, "You shall have your rights;" the spirit of the true Church says, "Defraud not your neighbour of his rights." Law says, "You must not be wronged;" the Church says, It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB.

Vers. 1-11.

Civil relations and Church membership; litigation before heathen courts.

The chapter opens abruptly. "Dare any of you a strong expression of disapproval a matter against another, go to law before the unjust?" Judaism had taught the Jews not to go before Gentile judges with a lawsuit against their brethren; the Romans had accorded to the Jews the right to settle their disputes among themselves, and Christians at that time might avail themselves of this rule (Lunge). But St. Paul, true to his ruling method, views the matter from Christian ground and treats it solely on the principles of the gospel. The argument in the preceding chapter concerned social relations, the present argument applies to civil relations, and yet they are sympathetic in his mind. Emotion is an associative force, and often establishes or rather discloses connections of ideas not perceptible in the "dry light" of intellect. In both these arguments the underlying sentiment is the same, viz. the dignity of Christian character and the supremacy of its obligations over interest, custom, usage, and every form of self not compatible with the generous spirit of sacrifice "for Christ"s sake." Bear in mind, then, in reading St. Paul"s Epistles, that if at times you lose the compactness of logic and its tenacious unity, you are always sure to find that more interior tie which binds thought to sentiment and displaces order for the gain of a higher method. Method, rather than order, marks the thinker whose vocation is to instruct the mass of mankind. Saints, as saints exist in the ideal of Christianity, "shall judge the world." They are to rule with Christ, to share his glory, and be acknowledged by the universe as participants in the final triumph of his mediatorial authority. If so, the mediatorial honour in future prospect has a certain scope of present activity, since it could not be then unless it were now. Of the character of these functions and the circumstances incident to their display, what know we? They fall under that law of reserve which the Lord Jesus spoke of when he said, "Of the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power," we are kept ignorant, and are the better for the ignorance. Details of great facts may intensify the intellect of sense, and work damage to the higher mind. If Christ was the Son of man, and as such filled the sphere of humanity, while admitting as such the limitation of his knowledge in one direction, viz. "of that day and hour knoweth no man," surely we need not perplex ourselves as to specific theories bearing on this subject. Christianity lays the stress on intelligence rather than on information, and, in fact, assures us that restraint is essential in our condition to equable development. St. Paul argues from the future to the present; thus, "shall judge the world, shall judge angels;" and the conclusion is emphasized, much more things that pertain to this life!" On this ground of thespiritual superiority of the saints in Christ, he claims that the judgment of believers may now be most advantageously exercised. It is a training in the school of Christ, and the discipline, while varied, is adapted to the highest good. Does St. Paul mean to put earthly tribunals under the ban? By no means. Again and again he sought their protection against Jews and Gentiles, and, if Roman law had not befriended him, his apostleship as men reason would have had a speedy termination. Who was more explicit and earnest than he in urging the doctrine that human government was a Divine ordinance, and as such to be obeyed and honoured? And who among statesmen and philosophers ever saw as deeply into the nature and functions of sovereignty as an essential element of the idea of man in the scheme of the universe? In law, in its administration of justice, in its protection of persons and property, in its power to verify and conserve the multitudinous interests of society, he recognized the right arm of Providence. The sense of providence must be social no less than individual, must transcend geographical bounds, and embrace the human family as a family of "one blood," or it failed of its office. So, then, he has no issue with law and its adjudications as such. But the uses of the law by Christians; the common and facile resort to it in order to gratify covetousness, pride, ambition, revenge, and any and every form of selfishness; that is the grave matter before his mind. "There is utterly a fault among you," a weakness, a repudiation of noble sentiment, a departure from the idea of the true self in Christ, "because ye go to law one with another" before unbelievers; brother arrayed against brother; and this exposure of a mutilated unity, with its accompanying evils, made in the presence of men whose criticisms would be only too eager to detect and magnify your imperfections. This is one aspect of the matter. But you gain your rights. Ay, and rights may be purchased too dearly. Go to law and get your rights; and then, as you retire from the seat of judgment, think of what you leave behind you what losses of sentiment, trust in others, hope of humanity, brotherliness of heart, perchance even integrity and honour. Right and rights, how often they part company, and the one is the burlesque, the shame, the bitter contempt of the other! "Rather take wrong;" it is altogether a manlier thing, if done for Christ"s sake. Lord Erskine, when at the bar, once said to Dr. Parr, "Accommodate the difference amicably. I can scarcely figure to myself a situation in which a lawsuit is not, if possible, to be avoided." This is another aspect of the matter. Alas! there is an aspect yet sadder. Law is used as a means to inflict a wrong. "Ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren." What gigantic wrongs have been perpetrated under the name of law, we all know; but who can tell how far this spirit, which uses justice to accomplish injustice, has gone forth into all the relationships of men, and vitiated life among the sacred retreats of home and the Church? The depravity of man"s lower nature is fearful, not because it is cruel and brutal, but because it is continually reinforced and invigorated by the depravity of his higher nature. What is true of the individual in this respect is true also of society. History and our own observation warrant the statement that the grossest perverters of law and justice have been found among those who were wealthy, or in high office, or otherwise influential. Their example, in very many instances, has worked downward, just as certain poisonous gases, too heavy to ascend, have infected the air on a level with us. Then follows a question containing its own answer: "Know ye not that the unjust shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" His impassioned formula, "Be not deceived," introduces a catalogue of immoralities that shut out men from God"s kingdom, in which we have a startling revelation, common with St. Paul, of bodily sins. Such were some of you. But how different now! washed, sanctified, justified, in the Name of Christ, and by the Spirit. Would they fall back into their heathenish practices? Within the compass of a few verses, St. Paul gives us principles that permeate civil society no less than religious. If carried out, we should have much less law and much more equity, and both law and equity would be immense gainers by the change. The tendency of the argument is the thing to notice. That tendency is to give men a true spiritual conception of themselves, and to develop their thought of self in accordance with God"s thought of them. The sense of public justice may compel us to resort to law, but this will not conflict with St. Paul"s idea. "On the other hand, any abuse of an institution, whether governmental or domestic, whether ecclesiastical or earthly, is an abuse of manhood, and on this truth he expends the force of his reasoning. In these verses, as in the previous chapters, arguing, denouncing, exhorting, pleading, it is the voice of a grand doctrine and a lofty trust and a sublime hope that we hear. And we hear it in the midst of strife and turbulence, out of the depths of a heart most sorrowful and yet "always rejoicing," and able to command itself and its faculties and resources whenever and wherever needed. L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Vers. 1-8.

Litigation; or, How shall Christians settle their differences and disputes?

Remarkable is the insight which this Epistle affords us into the interior life of a Church of the first age. We seem to be brought into the presence of remarkable virtues and of remarkable faults, and are impressed with the incongruity of the picture. One thing is certain, that human nature was then what it is now, and that Christianity offers the one Divine remedy for individual and for social ills.

I IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT DIFFERENCES AND DISPUTES WILL ARISE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES. The occasions are manifold; the conflict of interests and of opinions and of tastes will account for not a few. It is irrational to suppose that human nature can be at once transformed from the condition of the self indulgent pagan, for example, to the position of a mature and holy servant of God. There are to be found in the Church on earth persons occupying every point intermediate between these extremes; and among such "offences will come.

II IT IS SCANDALOUS THAT SUCH DISPUTES SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE A HEATHEN TRIBUNAL. The Greeks were an especially disputatious and litigious race. It was natural enough that those who in the days of their heathenism had been accustomed to refer their disputes to the judges of the city should still carry any differences that might arise into the same courts. But reflection, as the apostle urges, must have made manifest the unwisdom of such a proceeding. Christianity proclaimed itself a religion of peace and love; and its adherents spoke of one another as brothers; whilst it was known that the great Lord had enjoined the forgiveness of injuries, and had himself set an example of such forgiveness. It is clear that for Christians to go to law with one another before the tribunals of the heathen was to create a scandal, and to bring both the religion and its professors into contempt. The same reasonings apply wherever, in our own day, the powers that be are unchristian, and the followers of Jesus are but as leaven in the mass of heathenism.

III EVERY CHRISTIAN SOCIETY CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF ELEMENTS CAPABLE OF DEALING WITH SUCH EMERGENCIES. According to the apostle"s teaching, the "saints" shall be assessors with the Lord Christ in the judgment of the world and of angels; and those destined to fulfil functions so majestic may surely be entrusted with the settlement of trivial disputes. It is best if the two persons between whom a misunderstanding has arisen can compose their differences with no outside assistance; if this cannot be done, it is well to call in the aid of a Christian of calm, impartial character and of large experience, with a common agreement to accept his award without murmuring. There is surely a large opportunity for the exercise of the virtues of wisdom and justice in such directions as these. Much bickering and heart burning might be avoided were there a sincere and general desire to act upon the counsels of the apostle. The courts of justice, even in Christian countries, might thus be relieved of much of their business, to the advantage of the whole community.

IV THE BEST PREVENTIVE OF QUARRELLING IS A DISPOSITION TO SUFFER INJURIES RATHER THAN TO RESENT OR EVEN TO REDRESS WRONG. There is something very startling and very grand in the apostle"s sudden, unexpected questions, "Why not rather take wrong"? why not rather be defrauded?" These are "counsels of perfection." The alternative already suggested is good; but this is better far, however it be opposed to the inclinations of" the natural man." Christ has given us an example of suffering wrong. From the world we are bound, if it be so ordered, to accept with patience language of contumely or treatment of injustice. And it is suggested that, even amongst those who are fellow members of the same body, there may be mutual forbearance, there may be a patience amounting to magnanimity, a renunciation of rights which shall make it clear of how little importance are all those matters upon which it is possible for good men to differ.

Learn how sublime a thing it is To suffer, and be strong! T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL

Vers. 1-8.

Christians and the law courts.

How far are Paul"s exhortations applicable to believers in the present day? Amongst the ancients, laws were often unjust, judges venal, and frequently certain objectionable formalities, such as adjuration by false deities, had to be observed. In our own land and time these things happily are not as of old. Yet even amongst us there are laws tainted with injustice, and there is not a little in our modes of legal procedure which is objectionable. Legal proceedings are sometimes necessary. Paul appealed to Caesar. And our duty to society may render it incumbent upon us not to allow an evil doer to escape. Nevertheless litigation between professing Christians

I OFTEN PRESENTS A MELANCHOLY SPECTACLE.

1. The principals frequently receive injury. Not in pocket only; and in this respect he who gains the suit is generally little better off than he who loses. But morally and spiritually. Anger is excited, and ill feeling, if not positive hatred, towards the opponent. There is the direst temptation to take every possible advantage. The legal atmosphere is largely of the earth, earthy, and does not engender the state of mind needful for the beautiful but very heart searching petition, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us." The prayer, "Lead us not into temptation," may indeed be offered, for the man who loves legal contests requires no leading into temptation, since he runs into it headlong of his own accord.

1. Brings scandal upon the Church. Both as

1. to its lack of wise men capable of forming a true judgment;

2. to the real condition of its members.

The world judges all by those it sees. Irritated, if not vengeful, litigants will be taken as samples fairly representing the "Church of the redeemed." Thus:

1. Christianity itself becomes lowered in the estimation of men. To them it will seem as though the religion of peace, forbearance, unity, and love had failed at its very headquarters. So:

2. A great in fury is done to the world. By prejudicing it against the truth whereby alone it can be saved. Faulty Christian conduct drives men away from Christianity itself. Professors of religion have made ninny atheists.

II MUCH LITIGATION MIGHT BE AVOIDED BY:

1. Desiring only the right. Men who want their due and a little more rush to the courts. Many who think themselves very just are very unjust in their desires. It is very easy to become unjust almost unconsciously. If men would only judge their own cause justly there would often be an end of the dispute. It is astonishing how many men fail in forming a fair estimate of their own claims: there seems an almost invincible tendency to exaggeration. We should sternly educate ourselves in principles of justice. We should judge cur own cause impartially, as though it were not our own.

2. Being content oftentimes to take less than our due. The law promises to us all that we can claim, but we should not always seek all that we can claim. A spirit of sacrifice is not unchristian. "Suffering wrongfully" is not altogether deprecated in Holy Writ. Even if we are smitten on the cheek, our Master does not counsel to instantly cast our assailant into prison, and to keep him there until he has paid the last farthing of damages. Forgiveness, disposition to pass by injury, the most charitable view of an opponent"s motives and conduct, these things are "of Christ.

3. Not making great matters of little. If theoretically we deem ourselves justified in going to taw, we may well ask ourselves the question Is the matter in dispute worth disputing, and worth causing the evils likely to arise therefrom?

4. Remembrance of our relationship. "All ye are brethren." If Christians, we are trying to do the same work, to follow the same Lord, to serve the same God, to reach the same home. Is the contemplated litigation consistent with this relationship, and is it likely to promote "brotherly love"? And here we must avoid becoming prejudiced against our opponent. Opposing us, being on the other side, often makes all the difference. If on our side, a man is evidently a Christian, consistent, a credit to the community; but if against us, he is very apt to be everything objectionable. So some have a very easy conscience in going to law against a brother, because before doing so they have mentally ejected him from the brotherhood on account of his numerous delinquencies.

5. Submitting the matter in dispute to the arbitration of Christian brethren. Earnestly does the apostle recommend this course. He seeks to arouse the spiritually dormant Corinthians by the sarcastic supposition that, with all their boasted wisdom, they have not a man sufficiently wise to arbitrate in a case of dispute between two brethren. He unfolds a startling truth respecting believers, viz. that hereafter they shall judge

(1) the world (ver. 2);

(2) angels (ver. 3).

This declaration has much mystery attaching to it, but it accords with Christ"s promise to his disciples, that they should sit upon twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat_19:28; see also. (Rev_3:21) And Jude tells us (ver. 6) that fallen angels are reserved for future judgment. We get thus a glimpse of the future exaltation of the redeemed. Having shared in the shame of Christ, they will share in his glory and power. He is the great Judge, but they will be identified with him in judgment. "I in them, and they in me." As the Law on Sinai was ordained by means of angels, so the saints shall administer the kingdom of their Lord.

(1) If believers are to exercise such exalted functions hereafter, they should on earth be able to judge many of the causes of their brethren, and to do so with fairness and impartiality. Some are shy of arbitration, because sometimes it has had very little justice in it.

(2) In thus administering justice below, believers are preparing themselves for the duties of the life to come. Such work should not be slighted; it is in the highest degree educational. It should be performed with all possible care. Injustice done to others is always injury done to ourselves. H.

HOMILIES BY H. BREMNER Vers. 1-8.

On going to law.

Among other evils at Corinth calling for correction, a litigious spirit had begun to show itself, fostered doubtless by the unpleasant friction of parties. Brother went to law with brother before the heathen tribunals, and the Christian name was thereby brought into ill repute. For this the apostle rebukes them, and assigns weighty reasons why they should settle their disputes otherwise.

I THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF THE SAINTS. All judgment has been committed to Christ, (Joh_5:22) and in the exercise of this function his saints are associated with him. Suffering with him here, they shall reign with him hereafter, (2Ti_2:12) a kingdom being given to them (Dan_7:22; Mat_19:28) and when he comes again he will be accompanied by them in glory. (Jud_1:14, 15) In this capacity they shall judge, not only mankind, but also the angels. Whether the apostle has in view good angels or bad, it is not essential to inquire; the point is that the judicial dignity of the saints is so great that they shall sit in judgment even on angelic beings. How wonderful an honour! Meantime we share in the humiliation of our Lord. The saints are not exalted to the judgment seats of the earth. They walk here as kings in disguise, unknown by a world that lets itself be governed by the prince of darkness. Even now they exercise a judging influence, their holy lives condemning the ungodly around them; but the full manifestation of their judicial function is reserved for the time when Jesus comes in power. Oh, it will be a bright day for this world when holiness is exalted to the throne and all the evil of earth and hell is summoned to its bar, when the moral confusion meantime prevailing shall give place to the fair order of the reign of righteousness! What manner of persons ought they to be who are appointed to judge the universe of men and angels?

II THE RIGHT SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN CHRISTIANS.

1. Do not take them to a heathen court. To seek redress from unbelievers is an offence against Christian dignity. If the saints are to judge the world, why go to this same world for judgment? These pagan magistrates shall yet stand at your bar; why demean yourselves by standing at theirs? The question comes, how far this rule is binding upon us. Are we forbidden in every case to go to law with a brother? Looking strictly at the case of a quarrel between two Christians, the spirit of the apostolic rule is certainly of permanent obligation. While our courts of law are free from many of the objectionable features of heathen tribunals, they are not so thoroughly Christian as to justify believers in appealing to them, especially when redress may be had otherwise. And it is as unseemly for brother to sue brother at law as for members of the same family. Paul"s appeal to Caesar cannot be cited against his prohibtion here; for it was not a going to law at his own instance, but an appeal from one court to another where justice was more likely to be done.

2. Refer them to Christian arbitration. If the saints are to judge the world and angels, surely they are capable of deciding in matters pertaining to this life. Refer the quarrel to some wise Christian brother possessing the confidence of both parties, and let him judge. Arbitration has much to recommend it, even in matters purely civil; and in the case supposed, it tends to promote brotherly kindness, while securing the ends of equity. This does not warrant any judicial interference of the Church in matters properly belonging to the state. She is not to be "a judge or a divider" in secular affairs. (Luk_12:14) It is in disputes arising between her own members that she is to adopt this method of friendly settlement.

III THE AVOIDANCE OF DISPUTES. If quarrels between Christians arise, let them be settled as directed; but why should they arise? "Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?" This is the spirit of our Lord"s teaching, (Mat_5:38-40) which goes to the root of the evil. Instead of insisting on your legal pound of flesh, it is better to suffer yourselves to be wronged. This is the sublime unselfishness of Christianity. Unworkable? On this principle Jesus acted, (1Pe_2:23) and Paul; (1Co_4:12) and in proportion as it pervades society will wrong doing cease. There is something higher than mere rights, something diviner than legal justice; it is to "endure griefs, suffering wrongfully," in the spirit of him who won his triumph by the cross. Thus willing to suffer injustice, while careful to do no wrong, disputes will be avoided. B.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Vers. 1-8.

The relations of Christians to public law.

The apostle here deals with a fresh mistake made by the Corinthian Christians. In view of the extensive commercial interests of Corinth, we can well understand that disputes constantly arose which could only be settled by the common law courts. St. Paul does not intend us to infer that these law courts were unjustly conducted, or that, in ordinary matters and under ordinary circumstances, recourse may not be had to them. He only points out that the new feeling and sentiment which they should have and cherish, as Christian disciples, would be opposed to the litigious spirit, and fill them with an anxiety to set things right with their brethren rather than to struggle for the securing of their own rights. He glances, further, at the misconception which the surrounding heathen would form of such indications of quarrelling among the Christians. "We can well understand how detrimental to the best interests of Christianity it would be for the Christian communion, founded as it was on principles of unity and love, to be perpetually, through the hasty temper and weakness of individual members, held up to the scorn of the heathen, as a scene of intestine strife." The principle laid down by the apostle led in later times to the appointment of courts of arbitration. Of these we have historical evidence in the middle of the second century. It has been pointed out that the proper illustration of St. Paul"s principle should be sought, not in a Christian country, but in a heathen country where Christians may Happen to reside. On his principle, as it may now be applicable to us, we propose to dwell.

I ST. PAUL THROWS NO SLIGHT ON PUBLIC LAW. HOW are we to regard law? Is it the arbitrary command of a ruler? Or is it a national code created by the gifts of some legal genius, some Lycurgus or Justinian? Is it not rather a nation discovering the importance of the protection of its persons and. property, mutually agreeing to the adoption of rules for the securing of such protection, and putting the applications of such rules into the hands of certain individuals, called kings, judges, or magistrates? So for a people to disobey the laws is more truly rebellion against themselves, against their best interests, than against their rulers; and every individual in a nation is bound both to honour and to keep the law. St. Paul would fully recognize this, and intend no disrespect by what he says concerning it. We should observe that he carefully distinguishes the sphere of law to which he refers. Explain the difference between the "criminal" and "equity" courts at our assizes. St. Paul deals with matters of dispute, with equity questions, not with crime. And he very properly urges that such disputes usually rest on "strong feeling," "misunderstanding," etc., and consequently can be best dealt with from within the Christian brotherhood, which can recognize "feeling," and help its members to overcome "faults." Elsewhere he urges full obedience to the "powers that be." But he pleads that the Christians only confessed their failure from the Christian spirit when they could not give way one to the other, but were compelled to get outsiders and heathen to tell them what was just and right. So still we may say there are only a few things in respect of which Christians are justified in going to law, and they concern wholly the interpretations of national law in relation to rights of property. For these it is sometimes necessary to get an authoritative decision. Happily, the principle of arbitration is spreading in trade disputes and in national differences. Christians will hail the day when arbitration, the handmaid of peace, gains her rule in every land, and men and nations "learn war no more.

II ST. PAUL ASSUMES THE AUTONOMY (SELF RULE) OF CHRIST"S CHURCH. He would have them fully understand that, as a Church, they were quite competent to manage their own affairs all their affairs, and certainly all internal disputes. Show on what frequently declared and comprehensive principles the apostle"s argument is based.

1. The Church of Christ is a society.

2. It is a separated society, standing free from the world; in it, but not of it.

3. It is a complete society; the Head and the members together make up a "whole body.

4. It is a society resting on a common basis, the "life in Christ," not on a common opinion, nor on a common order, but on a common life, which makes it as one family.

5. It is a society under a living Head. It endures as "seeing him who is invisible;" and it is a spiritual realization of the "theocracy," or direct practical ruling of the Divine Lord.

6. It is a society with judicial functions. Show that the Church has disciplinary powers which it may bring to bear on the moral offender (as at Corinth); and consultative powers which it may employ to settle family, trade, or society disputes.

7. It is a society with a character, one of whose leading features is "mutual forbearance a self denying regard rather for the welfare of others than for our own. In such a society it would be manifestly inappropriate for any member who had a contention with a fellow member to "go to law before the unjust." The high Christian feeling finds expression in St. Paul"s intense language, "Why do ye not rather take wrong, why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The unjust - The heathens. A Christian could expect no justice from these. The saints - Who might easily decide these smaller differences in a private and friendly manner.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Going to Law with Brethren.

The charge:

v. 1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust and not before the saints?

v. 2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

v. 3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life!

v. 4. If, then, ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

The opening of this chapter is marked by an abrupt outburst of indignant feeling at the unworthy conduct manifested by some of the Corinthian Christians, probably such as were of Gentile origin: Does any one of you dare, when having a matter against another, bring suit before the unjust and not before the saints? Does anyone have the heart to do that from which a just sense of Christian dignity should have restrained him? Does no one blush for his own audacity in bringing suit in this manner? The word used by the apostle refers to a civil suit, usually in matters of money and possessions. In the opinion of Paul it was simply unheard of that controversies among the Christians should be aired in the courts of the Gentiles. To him it was self-evident that all matters of difference should be adjusted in their own midst, by their own people. For it seemed a contradiction in itself that those who were termed unjust, unrighteous, by the Christians should be called upon to adjust quarrels within the congregation, to administer justice to the saints, whose moral dignity should have felt the absurdity of the position. "Paul does not here condemn those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, as when a person is summoned to court; but those who of their own accord bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as it were, by means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to employ another remedy. " (Calvin.)

The apostle follows up his charge with a reference to their unparalleled prerogatives: Or do you not know, can it be that you are ignorant of the fact, that the saints will judge the world? This is the one passage of Scriptures which speaks of the participation of the believers in the judgment of the world. What was said of the apostles in particular, Mat 19:28, is here extended to all true followers of Christ. See Dan 7:22; Rev 2:26-27; Rev 20:4-6; 2Th 1:10; Jud 1:14. So intimate and perfect is the union of the members with Christ, their Head, that, when the Head appears in the glory of the Judgment, the members also will take part in this judicial function. And therefore Paul asks: If, then, among you, before you, the world is judged, are you unworthy of the smallest tribunals, are you incompetent to pass judgment upon comparative trifles? If they are to partake in that grand and glorious session of the Last Judgment, surely the earthly, the commonplace, the insignificant cannot be too difficult for them. How absurd for them to act that way!

To still greater heights the apostle rises: Do you not know that we shall judge angels, that it will be part of our functions to pass sentence upon the heavenly powers themselves? The good angels are excluded as being already confirmed in their bliss and as forming part of Christ’s retinue on the Day of Judgment. But upon the evil angels the believers will, on the last day, pronounce the sentence of condemnation. Satan himself, the god of this world, 2Co 4:4, and his angels, themselves world-rulers, Eph 6:12, will hear their doom spoken also by the believers whom they here tried to draw away from Christ. The final fate of angels their sentence will decide, truly to say nothing of secular matters, of things which concern this life only! Such matters the Christians will not consider beneath their dignity; rather will the assurance of their future elevated position render them all the more careful and conscientious in their judgment of the things of this life in case there should be a difference of opinion among them on any question.

The apostle now shows how widely their practice differed from the ideal state which he had in mind: If now your tribunals are held for the disposition of civil suits, if you hold them to straighten out your secular affairs, then those that are utterly despised in the Church, these you set up as judges. When court was held in Corinth, the parties were obliged to appear that had a civil suit to bring. For the purpose of adjudicating matters, the contending parties could then select a number of men from the list of the nobles whose names were entered in the rolls as possible judges; for according to Roman custom the contending parties were granted this right in order that they might place full confidence in the integrity of the men who were to act as judges. What an absurd contradiction! The Christians that were called to the hope of judging the world and even heavenly powers selected those as judges who, in spite of the respect which they enjoyed as citizens, were nevertheless regarded, from the standpoint of the believers, as devoid of all honor and respect. One can well imagine the self-sufficient, triumphant smile which appeared on the faces of the judges when quarreling Christians laid their case before them! What a disgrace to the Christian confession and to the name of Christ to be found haggling and wrangling before a Gentile court while confessing to be followers of the Prince of Peace!

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 6:2-3

I. The Apostle seems to refer to something in the Christian doctrine which was well known then, but certainly it is very obscure now. We always look forward to being judged, not to judging others, and therefore the appeal of the Apostle has no force for us. If the words stood alone, indeed, we should probably be inclined to think that they only spoke of judging in the sense of condemning by contrast or example, as our Lord said that the men of Nineveh would rise in judgment with that generation and condemn it. But this reference to future judgment does not stand alone; there are several passages having the same reference (Dan 7:22; Mat 19:28; Rev 20:4). That all these references are obscure is plain enough, but it is also plain that they mean something, and that the exercise of judicial authority on the part of the saints shall be real, however difficult for us to comprehend.

II. The saints shall judge the world, and yet they must themselves be judged, and it is plain that one judgment will decide the fate of all. There can be no favouritism with Him before whom we must all stand. These things can only be reconciled by the supposition that the saints will be called to the first (and strictest) account, and that, having been approved and found worthy, they will then become assessors of their Judge in passing judgment on the rest, and sit beside Him, hearing and approving His sentence.

III. When it says that the saints shall judge the world, I think that reason and analogy of Scripture teach us to limit "the world" to the heathen world. I cannot think that judging their fellow-Christians can ever be the lot of any, however perfect. The judgment of angels we must certainly limit to bad angels, for it does not appear how the others which never swerved from their allegiance would be liable to any judgment at all; none can be judged unless there be some accusation against them. Surely the solemn thought that we shall be called upon to assist in passing sentence upon immortal beings may serve, as the Apostle intended it, to show the pettiness, the unworthiness, of much of our daily life and strife! We are quarrelsome over trifles, exasperated over slights, driven to extremities over imaginary wrongs. God forgive us Christians! We had forgotten that we were to judge the world, and angels too, in a little while.

R. Winterbotham, Sermons and Expositions, p. 299.

References: 1Co 6:7.—G. Calthrop, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 165. 1Co 6:9.—W. M. Arthur, Ibid., vol. xiv., p. 253. 1Co 6:11.—E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, p. 177. 1Co 6:12.—A. Mursell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 264. 1Co 6:15-20.—T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. v., p. 147. 1Co 6:17.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi., No. 961. 1Co 6:18.—R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, p. 119. 1Co 6:18-20.—E. Garbett, Experiences of the Inner Life, p. 179. 1Co 6:19.—J. Pulsford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 312; Church of England Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 253.

1Co 6:19-20

Note:—

I. God’s consecration of the body. The image of the text is that of a shrine in which a god dwells. The body of a Christian believer holds another tenant than his human spirit; a Divine presence is within him, at once his glory and his power. And that Divine presence confers an unutterable sacredness upon his body. The body is a medium of Divine service. That is one of the suggestions of God’s consecration of it. The impulses of the indwelling Spirit ask for its co-operation; they need its ministry if they are to pass from gracious thoughts into Christian acts. We can set no limits to God’s consecration of the body of the Christian believer, can form but little conception of the complete and noble service which is possible to us because He has made such a shrine in which to dwell. These things speak of the "temple of the body," and lend an awful, glorious meaning to the admonition which bids us glorify God in our body as well as in our spirit, since the body, equally with the spirit, is His.

II. Our consecration of our bodies. The first essential to our glorifying God in our body is that we regard it with reverence. That is the use Paul is here making of the fact that it, equally with the spirit, is redeemed; that it, equally with the spirit, is a sphere of Divine service. Irreverence for the body, disregard of all its noble capabilities, and the ends to which it may be made to minister, was closely connected with the sin of impurity, which the Apostle is rebuking. We may make another application of our text. It is a Christian duty to do all in our power for the relief of bodily suffering, both in ourselves and others. Next to the work of preaching the gospel and healing the spiritual woes of men, which are the root of all their bodily sufferings—a work which remains in its importance first and unapproachable—comes the work of fighting against and destroying the pains that afflict humanity. A wonderful framework is the human body, writing out the story of sin in sickness; lending itself to all the process of human discipline; aiding the endeavour after spiritual perfection; making the noblest human ministries and a high Divine service possible to us.

A. Mackennal, The Life of Christian Consecration, p. 100.

(See also Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 276.)

References: 1Co 6:19-20.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvii., No. 1004; vol. xxvi., No. 1554; Sermons for Boys and Girls, p. 340; Three Hundred Outlines, p. 143; W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii., p. 102; Homilist, vol. iii., p. 370. 1Co 6:20.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1163; W. Lamson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vii., p. 239; Ibid., vol. xi., p. 31. 1Co 7:3.—Expositor, 1st series, vol. ix., p. 388.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. That it was not simply and absolutely their going to law which the apostle condemns, but their impleading one another at pagan tribunals, and before heathen judges; the law is good, if used lawfully; but the best thing may be abused; so is oft the law itself. Most evident it is, that the apostle, who was offended at their using the law before infidels, allows it before Christians, as the first verse implies.

Observe, 2. The title given to the Corinthian converts: they are all called saints, because they were all so by outward profession, and many of them so by inward sanctification.

Whence learn, (1) That all those who take upon them the profession of Christianity, are obliged to be saints, and may be so called, being such by visible profession.

(2) That the true and real Christian is a true and real saint: his heart is inwardly renewed and sanctified, his life thoroughly reformed and changed.

Observe, 3. The several errors enumerated by our apostle in the Corinthians, going to law,

(1.) In regard of the adversary, Brother goeth to the law with brother; not infidel with infidel, nor infidel with Christian; but Christian with Christian, brother with brother: which seems both unnatural and unchristian.

(2.) In regard of the judges chosen to decide and umpire their controversies; they were infidels and unbelievers, not saints. If brother will go to law with brother, let them make choice of Christian judges; but for Christians to refuse Christians, and to choose to be judged by infidels, was highly scandalous! What will heathens say, when Christians are together by the ears, and infidels live in unity.

Observe, 4. The great argument used by the apostle to dissuade them from this practice; he argues a majore ad minus, from the greater to the less. The saints shall judge the world, the wicked world; yea, the apostate angels in another world: are they not fit then to judge and determine trivial matters between man and man, between one Christian and another, here in this world?

Learn hence, That the saints, as assessors with Christ, and approvers of his righteous judgment, shall at the great day judge the wicked world, and the apostate angels.

O ye wicked world! you that now revile and scorn, that injure and wrong the saints and servants of the most high God, know, that they shall one day be your judges.

O ye saints! who shall be judges of the world, know that your time of judging in this world is not yet: do not anticipate your work, nor antedate your commission: Judge nothing before the time, till the Lord comes.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE SAINTS ARE TO RULE THE WORLD, AND EVEN ANGELS

1. “Which one of you, having a matter against another, dares to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?” During his three years Asiatic peregrinations, many things transpired in the great infantile church in Corinth; e. g., many new preachers had come and gone, Apollos, Peter and others all right, and of course many who were at least doubtful; not only heresies, but serious apostasies, were making inroads on them. Among other troubles, some of them were involved in law-suits among themselves, which the apostle utterly condemns, castigates severely and anathematizes witheringly, shaming them by his bold irony and ridicule.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? [1. Division, 2. Incest, 3. Litigation: such is the order of Paul's rebukes. With reckless audacity the Corinthians, by indulging in litigation and submitting their causes to pagan tribunals, were not only disobeying the Lord's command ( Mat_18:15-17 ), but were also committing treason against their present brotherhood and their future status as judges. It appears that even the Jews refused to sue each other before pagan tribunals--Josephus Ant. 14:10-17.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1–4. Dare any of you … go to law before the unjust? The third indictment against the Corinthian church is now presented. Some had sought judgments against their brethren in heathen courts. This Paul indignantly rebukes. The Jews themselves made it a rule never to carry cases before heathen tribunals. Much worse was it in Christians.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul then explains how believers are to settle disagreements with other believers.

dispute

disagreement or argument

does he dare to go ... saints?

Paul is emphasizing that Christians must resolve disagreements among themselves. AT: "he should not dare to go ... saints!" or "he should be fear God and not go ... saints!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

civil court

where a local government judge considers cases and decides who is right

Do you not know that the believers will judge the world?

Paul is shaming the Corinthians for acting like they do not know. (See: Rhetorical Question)

If then, you will judge the world, are you not able to settle matters of little importance?

Because they will be given greater responsibility later, they should be responsible for lesser things now. AT: "you will judge the world in the future, so you should be able to settle this matter now." (See: Rhetorical Question)

judge matters of this life

"stop arguments about things that have to do with this life"

Do you not know that we will judge the angels?

Paul is surprised that they do not seem to know. AT: "You know that we will judge the angels." (See: Rhetorical Question)

we

Paul includes himself and the Corinthians. (See: Inclusive "We")

How much more, then, can we judge matters of this life?

Because they will be given greater responsibility later, they should be responsible for lesser things now. AT: "Because we know we will judge the angels, we can also be sure that God will enable us to judge matters in this life." (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

believe

judge

believe

know

world

angel

life

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Dare. "The insulted majesty of Christians is denoted by a grand word" (Bengel).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.