BIG IDEA:
BELIEVERS SHOULD NEVER SUE FELLOW BELIEVERS
INTRODUCTION:
Remember the book written by Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel – that laid a lot of the groundwork for the basis for nouthetic counseling. Adams made the argument that believers would be wrong to submit to the counseling of unsaved psychologists. Instead believers have the resources they need to confront the most serious problems of life – the resources of the Word of God and the Spirit of God. In a similar vein, the Apostle Paul argues in this passage that the Church is Competent to Judge as well. Why would we ever consider taking a fellow believer to court and submit to the “wisdom” of unsaved judges? This would be damaging to the testimony of Christ.
We live in a society that goes to court at the drop of a hat. Look at the number of lawyers … the backlog of court cases … the ridiculous amounts of some of the settlements for damages, etc. Look at how people demand that their “rights” be protected and have the expectation of compensation if they are wronged in any way. Look at how this contributes to the high cost of liability insurance.
Some commentators want to temper Paul’s tone in this passage and say that believers should try to avoid suing fellow believers. But the clear import of the teaching is that believers should never sue fellow believers! Remember the context from chapter 5 where believers were reminded of their responsibility to judge among themselves. “Not only is the church to judge in matters of morality, but in other matters having to do with everyday life (civil situations).” (Gil Rugh)
Richard Hays: Paul is upset with the Corinthians because they are failing to act as a community, failing to take responsibility for one another. Just as they have failed to discipline the incestuous man, so they are failing to take responsibility for settling their own disputes; consequently they are taking their legal cases before unbelievers (6:6), whom Paul calls “the unrighteous” (6:1). In other words, they are going through the normal channels of the civil courts in Roman Corinth. The judges in such courts are “unrighteous” (adikoi) in the sense that they do not belong to God’s covenant community. Thus when the Corinthian Christians take one another to court, they are declaring primary allegiance to the pagan culture of Corinth rather than to the community of faith. This action breaks down the boundaries of the church and damages its unity. . .
In all likelihood, the members of the Corinthian church who were initiating civil proceedings against their fellow Christians were among the more privileged and powerful members of the community, whereas the defendants in such suits were likely to be the poorer members. This is consistent with a pattern that emerges elsewhere in the letter (see especially 11:17–34): the wealthier Corinthians were “shaming” those in the church who were of lower status and lesser means. This background information — none of which had to be explained to the original readers — helps us to interpret Paul’s stern rebuke to the litigators: “When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous [pagan high-status Corinthian judges, who will be biased in favor of the wealthy] instead of taking it before the saints? … I say this to your shame” (6:1, 5a).
Anthony Thiselton: Paul saw seeking judgment at a court where there is questionable justice (v. 1) as audacious (How dare you? v. 1). It amounted to an attempt on the part of a Christian to use superior economic or social power to manipulate a more vulnerable fellow believer into losing the dispute (vv. 6-8). Unlike his earlier, gentler remonstration in 4:14-21, Paul wants that person to feel ashamed (v. 5).
Adewuya: It is neither unusual nor necessarily sinful to have differences of opinion. What matters is the attitude that may be developed and, consequently, expressed due to the differences. This is the issue at stake in this chapter. Paul expresses dismay at the thought that a believer who had a grievance against another should go to law, instead of having the matter resolved within the Christian community. Paul’s shock is expressed in his statement “Does he dare?”—that is, “How dare he?” or “How in the world could that be?” For Paul, such an attitude is an admission of Christian failure as well as a lack of understanding of the nature of the Body of Christ. Paul’s sharp rebuke shows that the action was incompatible with Christianity. Although not overtly stated here, at issue among these believers is the problem of love and forgiveness. The settling of inter-Christian differences by going to court was contrary to the best interests of the individual family and church. There are times when questions of law are involved when it is necessary to determine the legal action to be taken. Paul did not forbid such. What he was saying was that it was wrong for two Christians to become so involved in acute misunderstanding that they want to go to a heathen court to decide who was right.
David Garland: Paul focuses his attention on the church for their conspicuous failure to resolve disputes between themselves. This failure grieves him for several reasons. This lawsuit breeds enmity and factionalism and will inevitably reduce the church to an assortment of rival tribes. It undermines any claim of the church to be God’s end-time community. It torpedoes their witness to outsiders of God’s love. It will bar the plaintiffs from inheriting the kingdom of God if they are guilty of wronging and defrauding others.
Paul Gardner: Judgment in civil legal cases requires the practice of wisdom. Can it be that those who claim to be wise are unable even to help guide members of their own church as to what is fair or just? Where is the wisdom they so flaunt if they have to go before unbelievers for judgments even on minor civil cases? In 6:9–11 Paul makes it clear that their lack of discernment raises serious questions about their status before God. Again, the irony of this must not be lost. They take pride in their status and power, which they regard as secured in the manifestation of their gifts, especially their wisdom and knowledge. This is why Paul reminds them of what he had said at the start of the epistle: their status is dependent on God’s grace. The use of the passive tenses in v. 11 helps make the point.
Main Idea: Christians are saints, and their community should reflect who they are. Their divisions and the ease with which they resort to a worldly court system are both wrong. As inheritors of the kingdom of God, they should reflect their God-given status in their love for each other and in using their grace-gift of wisdom in a godly way to resolve any legal problems between members.
Lawsuits between Christians Must Be Resolved without the Courts (6:1–8)
- Because They Will Eventually Judge the World (6:1–3)
- Because They Are Supposed to Possess Godly Wisdom (6:4–6)
- Because This Action Reveals Their Unrighteousness (6:7–8)
Community Identity Requires Holiness (6:9–11)
- The Unrighteous Do Not Inherit the Kingdom of God (6:9–10)
- The Righteous Have Been Changed by God (6:11)
Daniel Akin: Main Idea: Christians should avoid greed and selfish disputes that defame the church because Jesus has radically saved and changed them.
A. Suing a Fellow Believer Is Inconsistent with Our Future Responsibilities (6:1-3).
- We will be judges over the world (6:1-2).
- We will be judges over the angels (6:3).
B. Suing a Fellow Believer Is Inconsistent with How the Church Should Work (6:4-8).
- The church should be able to handle matters like these (6:4).
- The church’s witness to unbelievers must not be compromised (6:5-7).
Mark Taylor: Paul’s argument in 6:1–11 is threefold.
- First, Paul expresses shock and outrage and reprimands them for behavior not fitting the people of God who will one day judge the world and angels and for taking matters of this life before the secular courts (6:1–6).
- Second, Paul explains that the very presence of lawsuits among believers is a moral defeat for all involved. Nobody wins in this situation (6:7–8).
- Third, Paul issues a final reason for his rebuke accompanied by a strong warning (6:9–11). The “unjust” will not inherit the kingdom of God. On what basis should a believer take a matter before someone who has no inheritance in the kingdom of God?
Furthermore, the Corinthian believers are no longer “unjust” because they have been “washed, sanctified, and justified.” Again, the indicative of what they “are” lays the foundation of how they must behave.
I. (:1) ENTERTAINING THE QUESTION OF TAKING ANOTHER BELIEVER TO COURT EXPOSES PRESUMPTUOUS PRIDE
A. Universal Application to the Church of Christ
“Does any one of you”
Not just giving some local advice that applies only to certain special situations
B. Unsettled Grievance vs Another Brother
“when he has a case against his neighbor”
- assumes that this is not just some frivolous complaint but a serious and legitimate (at least in the mind of the plaintiff) grievance
- not talking about spiritual differences but about matters of property and civil law; things that people might normally sue someone over
- neighbor (lit “another”) in this context indicates another believer
C. Unthinkable Choice of Venue
“dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?”
Lawsuits common practice in Corinth.
Paul expressing shock; look at that word “dare” – emphatic by position in the Greek
6:9 — these unrighteous are not destined for the kingdom of God; stand in contrast to the saints; carries a moral connotation as well (Rugh)
David Garland: The verb “dare” (τολμᾷ, tolma; cf. 2 Cor. 10:12; 11:21; Jude 9) is placed at the beginning of the sentence to thunder his indignation over this turn of events—what gall they have! Suing one another before pagan magistrates is something Paul considers a horrid breach of Christian fellowship that could stem only from brazen insolence. How dare anyone do this! . . .
Evidence indicates that the civil courts of this era were less than impartial and that substantial corruption did exist. They were not held in high esteem by the masses, who did not have equal access to them. Winter (1991a: 563–64) thinks that the term “unjust” specifically applies to the character of the honorary magistrates who presided and the juries who pronounced verdicts—they were open to bribery and biased toward the powerful. Dio Chrysostom (Or. 8.9) complains that in Corinth there were “lawyers innumerable perverting justice.” Cicero (In Verrem 1.1.1) opens his speech to the jury (and judges) in the prosecution of Verres by citing the rumors throughout Rome and foreign lands that “the courts will never convict any man, however guilty, if only he has money.” Apuleius (Metam. 10.33) derides judges as “gowned vultures” and claims that “all our judges nowadays sell their judgments for money.”
The wealthy were able to take unfair advantage of this judicial system by exercising their prestige and influence. One’s breeding, social standing, and reputation for character — one’s persona — also tilted justice in favor of the elite. The poor always had the cards stacked against them in the courtroom. Pliny the Younger (Ep. 9.5) commends the new governor of Baetica in Spain regarding his administration of justice for “maintaining consideration for the best men.” He advises him to continue to “maintain the distinctions between ranks and degrees of dignity.” Social standing weighted the scales of justice; and if that did not work, bribery could tip the balance.
II. (:2-6) EVALUATING THE OPTION BETWEEN A SECULAR COURT AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE SAINTS SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER
A. (:2) Reminder #1 – The Saints Will Ultimately Judge the World –
Argument from the Greater to the Lesser
- Statement of the Obvious – Doctrine 101 class
“Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?”
This is a huge responsibility; clearly delineates a great chasm between believers and non-believers; speaking of responsibility of believers in coming kingdom.
2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21 – we share the authority of His rule; 20:4
Paul Gardner: Paul’s eschatology frames his argument here. The future status of both groups, the “saints” (ἅγιοι) and the “unrighteous” (ἄδικοι; v. 1), is in mind in vv. 2–3 where the “saints will judge the world” and “judge the angels” and in v. 9 where the “unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom.” The one group has standing within God’s community; the other group is outside.
- Simple Argument – Based on Competency
“If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?”
Craig Blomberg: “Trivial cases” (v. 2) does not mean that the Corinthian litigation did not involve serious offenses, merely that all human litigation is trivial when viewed in the light of Judgment Day.
B. (:3) Reminder #2 – The Saints Will Ultimately Judge the Angels
- Statement of the Obvious
“Do you not know that we will judge angels?”
Gil Rugh: Heb. 1:14 — in the millennial kingdom, all the angels will be subject to believers in glorified bodies as well; angels serve on our behalf even right now – who are destined for the fullness of salvation; Heb. 2:5-9; we should be living right now in the light of this truth; no problem judging trivial matters of this life right now.
David Garland: Paul’s purpose in these verses is not to articulate doctrine about the saints’ role in the final judgment of the world and the angels but to point out a disturbing inconsistency between what they will be doing at the end of this age and what they are doing now. It is probable that he wishes only to remind the Corinthians of their glorious end-time destiny when they will be given dominion even over the angels. In that day, the current state of affairs will be radically reversed. For example, Paul says that now, in this present evil age, he is a spectacle both to the world and to angels (4:9). In the end time, however, things will be upended, and he will join with the saints in judging both the world and the angels. The promise of that future should control all that Christians do in the present. They should appreciate that the ἄδικοι (adikoi), to whom they are now taking their petty complaints, will be completely excluded from the kingdom of God and not crowned with glorious status.
- Simple Argument – Based on Argument from the Greater to the Lesser
“How much more matters of this life?”
Paul Gardner: So Paul develops his argument from the greater to the lesser. With three rather sarcastic-sounding rhetorical questions followed by a summary exclamation, the point is driven home. The “saints will judge the world,” so surely as “saints” they are competent to judge minor civil cases (κριτηρίων ἐλαχίστων). The saints will also “judge the angels” (ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν), so how much more should they be able to judge “cases pertaining to this life” (βιωτικά)! The argument is made more personal as Paul specifically identifies the Corinthians as “the saints” (“by you” [ἐν ὑμῖν] in v. 2), thus still identifying them, even in their wretched inadequacies of understanding, as covenant participators “in Christ.” Similarly, in v. 3 Paul makes the application personal as he now identifies with the Corinthians in their status as eschatological judges, using the first-person plural (κρινοῦμεν). In this way, the argument from the greater to the lesser reaches its climax. If these Corinthian Christians will even judge angels one day, how much more should they be able to solve minor cases that arise among the people of God.
The power of this argument from eschatology could hardly have been lost on the Corinthians. The end time to which Paul refers reveals a complete reversal of the current scene, in which he has described even the apostles as “made a spectacle [by God] to the world, to both angels and men” (4:9). The true status of believers is not at once apparent to this world or even to angels anymore than Christ’s kingship was at once apparent when he walked this earth or went to the cross. But just as Jesus lived in a manner befitting his status as the Son of God and Messiah, so Christians should live in a manner befitting their status as God’s people (in the present) and as those who will one day rule and judge. For the time being, that status is best seen in the preparedness of the Christian, out of love for the brother or sister, to suffer wrong.
C. (:4-6) Clear Conclusion: Avoid Taking Your Fellow Brother to Court
- Because Believers are More Competent to Judge
“Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters,
appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
I say this to shame you.
Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough
to judge a dispute between believers?” (NIV)
Many different interpretations suggested for the difficult text in vs. 4.
Pagan judges would have no standing in the church …
Does not require a jury of 12
John MacArthur: [Verse 4] is a difficult verse to translate, as suggested by the widely varying Eng. Renderings. But the basic meaning is clear: when Christians have earthly quarrels and disputes among themselves, it is inconceivable that they would turn to those least qualified (unbelievers) to resolve the matter. The most legally untrained believers, who know the Word of God and are obedient to the Spirit, are far more competent to settle disagreements between believers than the most experienced unbeliever, void of God’s truth and Spirit.
Craig Blomberg: Now Paul is prepared to shame the Corinthians. Their litigation incenses him even more than their factiousness, because it so fundamentally compromises their witness before a watching world quick to ridicule and reject the church on such occasions.
- Because the Testimony of the Church is at Stake
“but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?”
Believers should be characterized by love, forgiveness and reconciliation. We should be the experts at putting up with one another and yielding our rights. We certainly don’t want to air our dirty laundry in front of unbelievers who do not possess the wisdom of God or the insight from the Holy Spirit.
III. (:7-8) ENGAGING IN SECULAR LAWSUITS RATHER THAN YIELDING YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR FELLOW BROTHER CANNOT PRODUCE A GOOD OUTCOME
A. Suing a Fellow Brother Automatically Makes You a Loser
“Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you,
that you have lawsuits with one another.”
Paul Gardner: They have “already” (ἤδη), that is, even before considering the results of any court case or the damage they are doing to the community, suffered a “complete defeat” (ὅλως ἥττημα). But in what sense have the Corinthians suffered defeat by taking out lawsuits against other brothers? The defeat may here refer to a “failure” in the sense of a failure to perceive what their status is before God and what is the nature of their inheritance in Christ. This is the way the word (ἥττημα) is used in Rom 11:12 where Paul expounds on what Israel has failed to understand and receive of its inheritance in Christ. In this sense, it is indeed “moral failure.” (Christians should never have been fighting each other anyway, and they have revealed their self-centeredness, pride, and lack of concern for the community.) Yet it is more than this. It is also a complete failure of spiritual wisdom and insight. Like Israel in Romans 11, the Corinthians have failed to see their true inheritance of the kingdom of God with all its blessings. These blessings make any win at court pale into insignificance. In fact, the way they are pursuing their grievances leads them into the same unrighteousness and the same wrongdoing and defrauding so typical of the world around them. Both the moral and the spiritual failure involved in taking brothers and sisters to court means, says Paul, that the people going to court, believing they are the ones who have been wronged, have themselves now wronged and defrauded “even [their] brothers [and sisters]” (καὶ τοῦτο ἀδελφούς).
David Garland: No matter who wins or loses the lawsuit, all lose spiritually. Their litigious spirit betrays a moral deficiency (Godet 1886: 293) and reveals the triumph of selfishness over love — something Paul addresses in chapter 13. The upshot is the complete loss of any sense of brotherhood in the community. Litigation by its very nature promoted enmity from the slander that was part and parcel of a trial and could only have fueled the church’s factionalism. Church members who were clients of one of the parties would have to side with their patron, if they were to remain clients, over against a fellow Christian.
B. Suffering Injustice Should Always Be the Preferred Option
“Why not rather be defrauded?”
Jeffries: In the kingdom, when a dispute arises between believers, the primary goal of resolution is not justice but reconciliation.
Difficulty: both believers convinced they are right and refuse to accept the adjudication of the believer appointed to do the judging; won’t be a problem if we have the attitude of willing to be defrauded.
Mark Taylor: It is far better to suffer wrong, to be cheated, than to tarnish the reputation of the gospel before the unbelieving world and to wrong another believer. How believers act in relation to other believers is a major emphasis in chaps. 8–14.
Robert Gundry: The questions, “Why not rather let yourselves suffer injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be defrauded?” imply that at the Last Judgment the suffering of present injustice and of present defraudation without resort even to an ecclesiastical court will turn out to be a victory in God’s court. Because of this implication, Paul expresses astonishment that fellow Christians are perpetrating injustice on each other in pagan courts by means of lawsuits that defraud the losers of their rightful property.
C. Suing a Fellow Brother Automatically Puts You in the Wrong
“On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud.
You do this even to your brethren.”
Matt. 5:38-42; Rom 12:17-19; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Pet. 2
A family should be able to work things out within the family
Paul Gardner: Verse 8 begins with the strong adversative (ἀλλά) and takes Paul into the most forceful part of his argument. The fact of the matter is that at least one member of the church, and perhaps more, has actually gone to court. Given the likely injustice of the system and the way it was used to enhance status and exercise power, this must have inevitably led to the weaker or less powerful person suffering wrong and even being defrauded. “Even” (τοῦτο) is used to particularize the matter at hand. That “saints” should do this to “saints,” given the eschatological reality, is unbelievable.