1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Butler's Comments

SECTION 1

Defrauders Are Not Brothers (1 Corinthians 6:1-8)

6 When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 2Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! 4If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? 5I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, 6but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

1 Corinthians 6:1 Squabbles: Chapter six is very evidently continuing the train of thought from chapter five. The apostle had just dealt with judging and settling disputes which must be done within the kingdom of God. In chapter five the problem is sexual immorality; Christians are commanded to judge and take action to solve the problem. In chapter six the problem is Christians suing one another in pagan law-courts. And again, Christians are commanded to judge themselves and take the action necessary to bring about a solution.

The word grievance (RSV), or matter (KJV), is pragma in the Greek text. Pragma is the word from which we get the English words pragmatic and pragmatism. Its generic meaning is, work, deed, event, or occurrence. The word pragma is used frequently, however, in ancient Greek writings (Xenophon, Josephus, the payri) to denote a civil law-suit with someone. Pragma was the technical term for a litigation.

It is unfortunate that an arbitrary division of this context has been made by those who, centuries ago, numbered Chapter s and verses. Such division tends to divert attention away from the fact that Paul is still talking about the same fundamental problem. That problem is the irresponsibility of the ancient Corinthian congregation of Christians to maintain scriptural standards of righteousness, justice and mercy.
We do not know with certainty what the grievances were between the brethren. They were probably disputes over properties. It is doubtful that they would have taken the case of the incestuous man to the civil courts for settlement. We do know that by the middle of the first century, A.D., Rome had saturated all her subjected provinces (which included Greece) with Roman law and its procedures. Of all ancient peoples the Romans were the most prone to litigation. Any man could make himself a prosecutor in a Roman court. Each party to a litigation deposited with the magistrate a sum of money (called sacramentum), which was forfeited by the losing party to the state religion. The defendant also had to give bail (vadimonium) as security for his subsequent appearances. The magistrate then turned over the dispute to a person qualified to act as a judge. If the defendant lost, his propertysometimes his personcould be seized by the plaintiff until the judgment was satisfied. Problems of ownership, obligation, exchange, contract, and debt took up by far the largest part of Roman law. Material possession was the very life of the Roman empire, and its provinces. This would be especially true in cosmopolitan and commercial Corinth. Ownership of property came by inheritance or acquisition. The making of valid wills was complicated with hundreds of legal restrictions. No heir might take any part of an estate without assuming all the debts and other legal obligations of the deceased. Acquisition came by transfer, or by legal conveyance resulting from a suit at law. Transfer (mancipatio, Taking in hand) was a formal gift or sale before witnesses and with scales struck by a copper ingot as token of a sale; without this ancient ritual no exchange had the sanction or protection of the law. Obligation was any compulsion by law to the performance of an act. It could arise by delict or by contract. Delicts or tortsnoncontractural wrongs committed against a person or his propertywere in many cases punished by an obligation to pay the injured person a sum of money in compensation. Obviously, there would be many grievances which might arise between Christian brethren engaged in the multiple vocations and businesses which would be present in the huge, sophisticated metropolis called Corinth.

1 Corinthians 6:1-6 Shamefulness: There are a number of reasons the apostle shames the Corinthians in this matter: (a) in verse one he uses the Greek word tolma which means presumptuous, audacious, bold (see its use in 2 Peter 2:10). They have presumed against the power of Christ to settle these disputes and have taken them to heathen judges; (b) Christians are to judge the heathen world, not vice versathey are showing their unworthiness to be Christians by declaring their incompetence to judge their own disputes. Just how are the saints to judge the world (1 Corinthians 6:2)? Christians living by faith in Jesus Christ in this present world are judging this world (declaring it to be condemned) by their obedience to God's Word (see Hebrews 11:7). Every Christian who preaches or teaches the gospel pronounces judgment upon those who do not. There is no other way to deliver the gospel (see Revelation 14:6-7). But in a real sense, also, the resurrected saints will have some part in the eternal judgment of the lost world. Perhaps that judgment will be simply a vindication of Christian choices made on earth (cf. Luke 11:32), or maybe it will be some form of active participation with Christ as Christians rule with Him (see Revelation 2:26-27; Revelation 3:21) in eternity; perhaps both. Peter indicates that the godly behavior of the Christians, before their heathen contemporaries, will provide a vindication for the Christians should there be any charges made against them at the day of judgment (1 Peter 2:11-12; 1 Peter 2:15). Now, if these Corinthian Christians are incapable of acting like Christians toward one another and producing justice, are they not declaring themselves to be incompetent to fulfill their destiny to judge the world with justice? Shame upon them! (c) Christians are to judge angels; Paul does not say how or when; we would speculate this refers to the angels who left their first estate (rebelled against God in heaven) and are being held temporarily in the pits of nether gloom (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6); Paul does say the manifold wisdom of God will be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the church (Ephesians 3:10); it may be, as T. R. Applebury wrote: ... the church is God's means of demonstrating to the angels that rebelled. that some men will serve Him out of their love for Him. The church is made up of those who deliberately choose to do God's will and refuse to do the bidding of Satan. If men can do this, angels certainly could have done so. The character and conduct of the saints then become a means of judging angels that sinned. (op cit pg. 105); if Christians are to judge these cosmic, spiritual and eternal matters, how much more are they obligated to discipline themselves to make proper judgments between themselves in this life! (d) They lay their brotherhood disputes before heathen judges who have no place in the church; Paul uses the Greek participle exouthenemenous which is translated by the RSV as those who are least esteemed but would be more properly translated as those who are rejected or condemned by the churchin other words the Corinthian Christians are asking judges who are alienated and opposed to the church to judge matters that would require a mentality and spirituality completely foreign to them; Shame upon them! (e) In so doing these Corinthian Christians are declaring to the world that the wisdom Christians are supposed to have is not as good as that of heathen judges; they cannot seem to find one of their own brethren wise enough to settle disputes between themselves; even brothers by natural birth are often able to settle disputes between themselves without recourse to civil law courts; but in Corinth it was Christian brother against Christian brother, and that in courts where unbelieving judges sat!

Christians should obey all the laws (which do not demand direct and certain disobedience against God) of their governments. All transactions requiring legal sanction by a civil government should be submitted to such sanction. And Christians are not prohibited from recourse to civil court when it is necessary to defend themselves against heathen accusers. At Philippi, Paul demanded his rights as a Roman citizen against ungodly and unjust treatment (Acts 16:37); he did the same before Festus (Acts 25:10). But Christian brethren should not have to bring civil suit against one another to obtain justice when there is a grievance. Let Christian brethren first do what is fair and honest and just; let them settle any dispute between themselves, then, if civil law requires it, let it be legally sanctioned in civil court. The law is for the ungodlynot for the godly (1 Timothy 1:8). Christians should never have to resort to civil law to arrive at what is fair, honest and just between themselves. Civil law should be resorted to only as a secondary sanction of the justice already accomplished between Christian brethren! And this is to apply in every area of Christian lifetransfers of property, accidental harm done, services performed, etc. In every circumstance the Christian's first concern is not What will it cost me?Will I make a profit?Shall I accept responsibility for my error? but, Have I been fair, honest, and justHave I given what my brother rightly deserves?

1 Corinthians 6:7-8 Solutions: The apostle has already suggested (1 Corinthians 6:5) that since it appears they cannot settle these disputes between themselves, they should select a man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood. That would be the first suggestion to bring a solution to their incompetency. But who, among them, would be wise enough? He should be well-trained in what the Word of God says in the areas of ethical absolutes and principles. He should know what the Scriptures say about brotherly relationships. He should be old enough to have had much practical experience in the circumstances of life and interpersonal relationships. Ordinarily, it would be the responsibility of elders and/or evangelists (see epistles to Timothy and Titus) to arbitrate and bring about reconciliation between disputing Christian brethren. But any wise Christian should be able to function in this capacity.

The second solution Paul offers is that a Christian would be much better off to allow himself to be defrauded by a brother than to quarrel over grievances to the point of bringing suit in a pagan civil court. When Christians take one another to a heathen judge, rather than being able to settle between themselves, it smacks of some underlying greed or spirit of retaliation. Whether that be the case or not, two Christians suing one another in civil court is taken by the world to mean that Christians are no different than greedy and spiteful heathen. Paul clearly states that for Christians to sue one another in pagan court is defeating (Gr. hettema, loss, detriment, overthrow)it brings discredit on the church and the gospel. When Christians cannot settle a grievance between themselves, one of them should be willing to suffer personal abuse, injury or loss rather than let the church be defeated in its mission to bring men to Christ! That is not easybut that is what Christ, Himself, did! Nowhere does the New Testament say the Christian cannot appeal to the civil courts for redress and justice when he is wrongfully sued by an unbeliever. In fact, a number of scriptures (the clearest being Romans 12:14-21; Romans 13:1-7) tells the Christian that when he has done all he can to be at peace with all men. If an unbeliever persists in an unjust action, the Christian is to leave the wrath of God up to the civil authorities for execution.

But all members of the kingdom of God are expected to think and act as regenerated, reborn people. They should act toward one another as Jesus taught in the Sermon on The Mount. While force and law is for the ungodly, the Sermon on The Mount characterizes the citizens of God's kingdom. The kind of brotherly love that would rather accept being defrauded by a Christian brother than to sue him in civil court is taught in a number of New Testament passages (see Colossians 3:12-13; Romans 15:1-2; 1 Peter 2:20; 1 Peter 3:8-15; Philippians 2:3-4). This is as relevant today as it was when Paul wrote it. The word of God abides forever!