Original Meaning

PAUL TURNS TO a second example of how the judicial process should work within the church rather than outside it. The sin of the libertine group that he addresses here involves the practice of suing fellow Christians in secular courts. In short, he makes two main points: (1) if disputes require intervention, it should occur within the Christian community; and (2) it is even better to accept being wronged than to demand recompense in either a secular or a Christian context.

This section begins with Paul’s disgust over what is going on. Verse 5 demonstrates that the “any of you” and “another” of verse 1 refer to fellow believers. “Dispute” is literally a “matter, practice, or thing,” but in context obviously implies a legal complaint. Most common Hellenistic litigation involved property disputes. The verb “cheat” in verse 8 means to “defraud,” so some sort of complaint concerning property or business dealings seems to have been the problem.1 If this is what was going on at Corinth, then the disputants were among the minority of well-to-do believers in the congregation (and, again, possibly among its patrons), since the vast majority of people didn’t own land or homes in those days.2 “Saints” refers to Christians, not to particularly moral believers, so “the ungodly” must refer to non-Christians in general. Thus there is no particular criticism of corruption in the Roman courts implied here, common though such corruption was. Paul, in fact, probably recalled with thanks the fair treatment he had received from Gallio, the Roman proconsul, when he had been in Corinth (Acts 18:12–17).

Verses 2–3 present parallel examples of the logic of arguing “from the greater to the lesser.” Drawing on Daniel 7:22, Paul reminds the Corinthians that they will help Jesus exercise judgment over the non-Christian world (both people and angels). Surely, therefore, they must be competent to handle earthly disputes in their own midst. “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.

The NIV translation of verse 4 is not nearly as likely as the alternative reading in the NIV footnote, “Do you appoint as judges men of little account in the church?” (cf. NASB, RSV, NEB). If the translation were correct, it would mean that even the least competent Christian is preferable to a non-Christian as judge between believers’ disputes. But more probably Paul has constructed a parallel question to verse 2b, in which he formulates an “if … then” clause, culminating in a rhetorical question. The reading in the NIV footnote would refer to the non-Christian judges. “Of little account” is literally “despised” and would then refer to the Corinthians’ normal attitude to the non-Christian judicial system, except, ironically, when they can get financial gain out of using it.3

Verse 5 contrasts with 4:14. 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. “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough … ?” drips with irony, since the Corinthians had been claiming to be so wise (4:10). But Paul probably also believes quite seriously that among the godly (minority?) in the church, some bear the marks of true Christian wisdom (2:6) and perhaps also legal training, so that they might intervene constructively. “Believer” in verse 5 is literally “brother,” as in verse 6.

Verses 7–8 proceed to the more radical of Paul’s two points. “Have lawsuits” (v. 7) might better be rendered “get judgments” and is not limited to litigation in a secular context. Whether inside or outside the church, the attitude of demanding one’s rights remains diametrically opposed to Christ’s teaching (Matt. 5:39–42) and example (1 Peter 2:23). If two Christians cannot resolve their disagreements short of both secular litigation and Christian arbitration, something is fundamentally amiss. Better to suffer wrong—God will one day vindicate all injustices—than to alienate a fellow believer by requiring redress.

The fraud and injustice that trigger lawsuits, and which can even be exacerbated by them, lead Paul naturally to think about those who are “wicked” more generally (v. 9; from the same Greek root as “be wronged” and “do wrong” in vv. 7–8). So, as in 5:10–11, he warns against being sucked into the vortex of behavior that eventually calls into question one’s very salvation.

Another vice list appears, uniquely tailored to the most common and offensive of Corinthian perversions. The same items that Paul mentions in chapter 5 reappear, along with four new ones. If they have anything in common, “it would seem to be that all represent some form of ruthless self-gratification, reckless of other people’s rights.”4 “Thieves” cause no surprise in a list stimulated by the thought of lawsuits. “Adulterers” follow naturally after a reference to the “sexually immoral” in general. So too do “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders,” though these two terms are better understood as referring to the more passive and more active partners, respectively, in any male homosexual act.5 By using nouns that become labels for individuals only after persistent sin in particular areas, Paul makes plain that temporary lapses do not cause an individual to forfeit salvation. As Prior explains, “Paul is not talking about isolated acts of unrighteousness, but about a whole way of life pursued persistently by those who thus indicate that they would be aliens in the kingdom of truth and light”6 (cf. 1 John 3:4–10).

Paul concludes on a more hopeful note (v. 11). Such behavior characterized the pre-Christian lives of many of the Corinthians, but they have now generally abandoned such practices. Therefore, they ought to be able to give up suing each other also! To stress the new holiness of character God has imputed to them, and in which they are progressively but fitfully growing, Paul ends this section with a reminder that they have been washed (inwardly, but possibly thinking of the external rite of baptism as well), made holy (“sanctified”) and declared righteous (“justified”). The agency of Jesus and God’s Spirit provides an important implicit Trinitarian reference to round out the paragraph.

Bridging Contexts

AT THE OUTSET, it is crucial to observe both the contextual limitations and the lack of limitations that appear in this passage. On the one hand, nothing arises explicitly to solve questions about whether or not Christians may sue non-Christians or secular institutions such as corporations or the government. Verses 6–8, however, surely imply broader principles that may be brought to bear, particularly with respect to the potential discredit lawsuits may bring to Christianity in the eyes of unbelievers.

The key question to ask is whether or not the gospel is promoted by any contemplated litigation, as Paul’s use and non-use of Roman courts throughout the book of Acts consistently demonstrates (see above, p. 101, n.24). There is also a key difference between seeking justice for others who have been disenfranchised and trying to avenge wrongs done against ourselves.7 On the other hand, there is no restriction on Paul’s prohibition within Christian circles. In other words, it would be invalid to say that, because my complaint is not property-related, then Paul’s principles do not apply to my case. The disgrace described in verses 6–7 would still remain.

The criteria employed in determining whether or not to sue a non-Christian suggest parallel criteria for deciding whether or not to seek redress within the Christian community for an offense caused by a fellow believer. At times, such grievances prove legitimate and solutions must be sought—but within the church. Paul’s Jewish heritage provided him with ready-made models of such conciliation, from Moses appointing judges during the wilderness wanderings to recent rabbinic use of the synagogue and its elders to function as a courtroom. The Greco-Roman world was rife with litigation, but Jews were forbidden to use heathen courts.

Historically, among Christians, medieval Catholicism implemented parallel models with greatest frequency, creating a labyrinth of ecclesiastical courts and tribunals. But since the Reformation, Protestants, and increasingly Roman Catholics too, have used the church just to solve overtly religious squabbles and have allowed their members to use the state for everything else. The Alternative Dispute Resolution movement in both secular and Christian communities has only recently begun to turn this trend slightly around. Here is one place, however (contrast our comments on 5:9–13), where Christian alternatives are not only desirable but mandatory.

Paul’s points in verses 2a and 3 (on believers judging both the world and angels) are subordinate to his contrasting questions in verses 2b and 4 (on being competent to provide judges for the church). But they do remind us that Matthew 19:28, with its reference to the twelve disciples judging the twelve tribes of Israel, offers no special privilege to the apostles. All believers will be involved in judging all of unredeemed humanity.

Verses 1–6 in general offer an important illustration of 5:12b (a Christian must judge insiders not outsiders) and again remind us that 2:15 and 4:3 cannot be taken as absolute prohibitions against all forms of judging (see above, pp. 68, 93–94). The alleged contradiction between 6:2 (the saints will judge the world) and 5:12a (Christians should not judge those outside the church) disappears once it is seen that the former verse refers to what believers will do at Christ’s return; the latter, to what they are not to do prior to his return. Motivation by guilt (v. 5) is tricky to apply in cultures not as dominated by shame as the ancient Mediterranean world. Christian self-esteem is important, and false guilt can be destructive. But when a person is indeed objectively guilty, limited amounts of shame—helping the person recognize that a sin has been committed—should and can lead that person to appropriate repentance.8

Verses 7–8 stress a cardinal component of Christian living more generally—the voluntary relinquishing of one’s rights to serve others (cf. Phil. 2:1–11). Chapters 8–10 will develop this theme in great detail. Verse 8 reminds us that the plaintiffs even in seemingly legitimate litigation often wind up demanding more than adequate compensation. Secular legal theory too has at times recognized that the very process of bringing suit almost inevitably dehumanizes all the parties involved.9

Like 3:16–17, verses 9–11 must be seen as a real and not merely hypothetical warning. Verse 11 suggests that Paul does think a majority of the Corinthian church is really saved, but there would be no point in his twofold affirmation that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom (vv. 9–10) if he did not fear that at least a few in his congregation might be masquerading as believers. Of course the Calvinist-Arminian controversy over “eternal security” cannot be solved by either of these passages, and interpretations consistent with both of those traditions can fit equally well here.

By far the biggest controversy surrounding the vice list of verses 9–10 has to do with the two words for homosexual offenders. As in Romans 1:24–27, homo-and heterosexual sins are paired in a way that suggests that neither is any better or any worse than the other. One can scarcely use these verses to claim that no one can simultaneously be a Christian and engage in homosexual actions unless one is prepared to say the same thing of one who commits adultery or exhibits greed! But in each of these instances true Christians should acknowledge their behavior as sinful and try to change it. Persistent rebellion increasingly calls into question any prior profession of faith. The Romans 1 passage also makes plain that Paul treats male and female homosexual offenders alike, even if only men are mentioned here.

What is more, it is important to stress that actions rather than orientations predominate throughout this list. While it is false to claim that the ancient world knew nothing of apparent homosexual orientation but only actions,10 it is true that one’s predisposition need not lead to actual sin. Celibacy remains the biblically mandated alternative to heterosexual marriage for people of any orientation unable to find a permanent partner of the opposite sex. It is also linguistically invalid to limit the type of homosexual behavior Paul describes either to pederasty (adult men with underage boys) or to homosexual prostitution (casual sex for profit between individuals not committed to a lasting relationship with each other).11

All the sins enumerated in verses 9–10 share the common traits of being self-indulgent and self-serving. From a spiritual perspective, they also become self-destructive. Hence, Christians should make sure they remain part of one’s distant past (v. 11). Paul knows, of course, that they do not always do so, but he appeals again to his favorite, “Become what you really are” logic.

Contemporary Significance

AS WITH CHAPTER 5, 1 Corinthians 6 includes teaching that is not as well-known or obeyed in Christian circles as it should be. Our society rivals and possibly even surpasses ancient Corinth in its passion for suing people. Christians greedily join in the fray, taking fellow believers to court, and even more commonly suing churches and parachurch organizations whose insurance companies have “deeper pockets.” Juries almost invariably award plaintiffs against such organizations substantial sums, at times leaving the defeated parties in dire financial straits.

On a broader level, the whole concept of relinquishing one’s rights seems anathema to a culture immersed in asserting them. Women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, liberation theology, even the so-called “inalienable rights” of the American constitution, all contain important Christian components but also owe their existence to significant secular and even anti-Christian influences.12

Nevertheless, there are promising signs with the Alternative Dispute Resolution movement, a growing campaign in the secular arena to settle litigation out of court and to use innovative legal methods for avoiding formal lawsuits altogether. In Christian circles numerous conciliation services and societies have sprung up, some on a national level, and others as local ministries.13

Churches must go further:

The faith community not only trains its members in the art of reconciliation, but it makes available the process of reconciliation to the world at large. Such projects as conflict management seminars, victim-offender reconciliation programs, and college and university peace departments witness to the life of the new age as well as offer a new way for those caught in the old.14

And there remain many unheralded Christian individuals who continue to obey Paul’s words by not filing suit even when they have legitimate complaints and are encouraged by fellow Christians to get even. Certainly the media today love to pounce on every racy story of Christians fighting, while they simultaneously fail to cover numerous events and ministries that would portray believers in a more positive light.15 The concern not to wash our dirty linen in public certainly remains valid.

Verses 9–11 raise afresh all the questions of right and wrong definitions of carnality discussed under 3:1–4. Deserving special comment again is the issue of homosexuality. Under no conceivable circumstances can the Bible be made to defend the often-heard allegation that God created homosexuals that way. What genetic component may contribute to homosexual predispositions remains to be determined but, like inherent predispositions to alcoholism, violence, or various diseases, such a component, if demonstrated, would be an offshoot of the Fall, not of creation.16 Equally crucially, genetic predispositions never exempt humans from biblical standards and accountability before God for moral or immoral behavior. Those predisposed to alcoholism may have to impose more severe restrictions on themselves, such as teetotaling, than others might. But that does not mean that drunkenness for them becomes morally acceptable. Those predisposed to homosexual practices may have to monitor themselves more carefully too, but that scarcely turns sin into a divinely ordained lifestyle.

The strikingly consistent social factors that spawn “coming out of the closet” suggest, moreover, that the “nurture” component in the nature-nurture controversy has probably too often been underestimated.17 After all, since the vast majority of homosexuals do not procreate, the simple laws of mathematics lead to the inexorable conclusion that homosexuality would have substantially died out over the centuries if there was a purely or even predominantly genetic component.

None of this is to deny that conservative Christians have often treated homosexuals far more abusively than they have other sinners. There is real discrimination against the gay community that must be fought—for example, restricted employment opportunities for jobs in which sexual behavior is irrelevant. There is genuine homophobia (fear of association with homosexuals, not merely opinions about their moral condition), especially in our churches. But the “politically correct” movement has often grossly exaggerated the extent of that homophobia and incorrectly applied that label to believers who are lovingly and compassionately trying to uphold biblical standards.

Verse 11 recalls another crucial point in this discussion: homosexuality can be abandoned with God’s help. Both the Corinthians’ and contemporary experiences demonstrate that gays can become “straight” and have loving, fulfilling heterosexual marriages, even though it is often a long process and difficult struggle.18 As with conciliation services, there are a growing number of national and local ministries that facilitate these conversions.19 These ministries should be greatly welcomed and enthusiastically supported by all Christians.

The same principles often apply to individuals and organizations working with AIDS victims. Here too Christians have tended to polarize along one of two unbiblical extremes. Some attribute the epidemic to God’s direct judgment against sin and therefore find little reason to intervene with love or medical research. But this unfairly condemns innocent hemophiliacs and others infected with the disease through no sin of their own. It also assumes a more direct correlation between disease and God’s agency than is usually present in Scripture. God generally saves his retribution for Judgment Day.

On the other hand, here is one plague that could be almost entirely wiped off the face of the earth if biblical sexual ethics were widely followed and appropriate testing for the virus practiced prior to marriage. How tragic, in a culture highly committed to sex education and bodily health, that promoting sexual abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage continues to be scorned and rejected! Totally apart from its religious underpinnings, it would bring the desired results our secular society craves, but of course at the “impossible” cost of restricting human freedom to indulge oneself.