Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 6

1 Corinthians Chapter 6

The main design of this chapter is to reprove the Corinthians for the practice of going to law before heathen courts or magistrates, instead of settling their differences among themselves. It seems that after their conversion they were still in the habit of carrying their causes before heathen tribunals, and this the apostle regarded as contrary to the genius and spirit of the Christian religion, and as tending to expose religion to contempt in the eyes of the men of the world. He, therefore (1 Corinthians 6:1–7), reproves this practice and shows them that their differences should be settled among themselves. It seems also that the spirit of litigation and of covetousness had led them in some instances to practice fraud and oppression of each other; and he therefore takes the opportunity (1 Corinthians 6:8–11) to show that this was wholly inconsistent with the hope of heaven and the nature of Christianity.

It would seem, also, that some at Corinth had not only indulged in these and kindred vices, but had actually defended them. This was done by plausible, but sophistical arguments, drawn from the strong passions of men; from the fact that the body was made for eating and drinking, etc. To these arguments the apostle replies at the end of the chapter (1 Corinthians 6:12–20), and especially considers the sin of fornication, to which they were particularly exposed in Corinth, and shows the heinousness of it, and its entire repugnance to the pure gospel of Christ.

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

1. That he had mentioned the subject of judging (1 Corinthians 5:13), and that naturally suggested the topic which is here introduced.
2. 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 men regarding property and right, in which there is no blame on either side. They may both be desirous of having it equitably and amicably adjusted. It is not a difference between men 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 church. 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 heathen 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 heathen 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. Sanhedrim, chap. xxvi. § 7. They even considered such an action to be as bad as profaning the name of God.

Do ye not know, etc. The object of this verse is evidently to show that Christians were qualified to determine controversies that might arise among themselves. The apostle shows this by reminding them that they will be engaged in determining matters of much greater importance than those that could arise among the members of a church on earth. He argues that if they are qualified for that, they must also be regarded as qualified to express a judgment on the questions that might arise among their brethren in the churches.

The saints. Christians; for the word is evidently used in the same sense as in 1 Corinthians 6:1. The apostle says that they knew this, or that this was so well-established a doctrine that none could doubt it. It was to be admitted by everyone.

Shall judge the world. A great variety of interpretations has been given to this passage. Grotius supposes it means that they will be first judged by Christ, and then act as assessors to Him in the judgment, or join with Him in condemning the wicked; and he appeals to Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30, where Christ says that they which have followed him should sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (See the note on Matthew 19:28).

Whitby supposes that it means that Christians are to judge or condemn the world by their example, or that there will be Christian magistrates, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 49:23) and Daniel (Daniel 7:18). Rosenmuller supposes it means that Christians are to judge the errors and sins of people pertaining to religion, as in 1 Corinthians 2:13, 16; and that they ought to be able, therefore, to judge the smaller matters pertaining to this life. Bloomfield, and the Greek Fathers and commentators, suppose that this means that the saints will furnish matter to condemn the world; that is, by their lives and example they will be the occasion of the greater condemnation of the world. But to this there are obvious objections:

1. It is an unusual meaning of the word judge.
2. It does not meet the case before us. The apostle is evidently saying that Christians will occupy so high and important a station in the work of judging the world that they ought to be regarded as qualified to exercise judgment on the things pertaining to this life. However, the fact that their holy lives will be the occasion of the deeper condemnation of the world does not seem to furnish any plain reason for this.

To the opinion also of Whitby, Lightfoot, Vitringa, etc., that it refers to the fact that Christians would be magistrates and governors, etc., according to the predictions of Isaiah and Daniel, there are obvious objections:

1. The judgment to which Paul in this verse refers is different from that pertaining to things of this life (1 Corinthians 6:3); but the judgment that Christian magistrates would exercise, as such, would relate to them.
2. It is not easy to see in this interpretation how, or in what sense, the saints will judge the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).

The common interpretation, that of Grotius, Beza, Calvin, Doddridge, etc., is that it refers to the future judgment, and that Christians will in that day be employed in some manner in judging the world. That this is the true interpretation is apparent, for the following reasons:

1. It is the obvious interpretation—that which will strike the great mass of people, and is likely, therefore, to be the true one.
2. It accords with the account in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30.
3. It is the only one that gives a fair interpretation to the declaration that the saints should judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).

If asked in what way this is to be done, it may be answered that it may be meant simply that Christians will be exalted to the right hand of the Judge and will encompass His throne. They will assent to and approve of His judgment; they will be elevated to a post of honor and favor, AS IF they were associated with Him in the judgment.

They will then be regarded as His friends and express their approbation—and that with a deep sense of its justice—of the condemnation of the wicked. Perhaps the idea is not that they will pronounce sentence, which will be done by the Lord Jesus.

Instead, they will then be qualified to see the justice of the condemnation that will be passed on the wicked. They will have a clear and distinct view of the case; they will even see the propriety of their everlasting punishment and will not only approve it but be qualified to enter into the subject and to pronounce upon it intelligently.

And the apostle's argument is that if they would be qualified to pronounce on the eternal doom of people and angels—if they had such views of justice and right, and such integrity as to form an opinion and express it regarding the everlasting destiny of an immense host of immortal beings—they assuredly ought to be qualified to express their sense of the smaller transactions in this life and pronounce an opinion between one person and another.

Are ye unworthy. Are you disqualified.

The smallest matters. Matters of least consequence—matters of little importance, scarcely worth naming, compared with the great and important realities of eternity. The "smallest matters" here mean the causes, suits, and litigations relating to property, etc.

Shall judge angels. All the angels that will be judged, good or bad. Probably the reference is to fallen angels, as there is no account that holy angels will then undergo a trial. The sense is, "Christians will be qualified to see the justice of even the sentence which is pronounced on fallen angels. They will be able so to embrace and comprehend the nature of law, and the interests of justice, as to see the propriety of their condemnation. And if they can so far enter into these important and eternal relations, certainly they should be regarded as qualified to discern the nature of justice among men, and to settle the unimportant differences which might arise in the church."

Or, perhaps, this may mean that the saints will in the future world be raised to a rank in some respects more elevated than even the angels in heaven.

(Prof. Stuart.) In what respects they will be thus elevated, if this is the true interpretation, can only be a matter of conjecture. It may be supposed that this will be because they have been favored by being involved in the plan of salvation—a plan that has done so much to honor God; and that to have been thus saved by the immediate and painful intervention of the Son of God, will be a higher honor than all the privileges which beings can enjoy who are innocent themselves.

You have judgments. Causes; controversies; suits.

Things pertaining to this life. Property, etc.

Set them to judge, etc. The verb translated set—kayizete—may be either in the imperative mood, as in our translation, and then it will imply a command; or it may be regarded as in the indicative, and to be rendered interrogatively, "Do you set or appoint them to judge who are of little repute for their wisdom and equity?" that is, heathen magistrates.

The latter is probably the correct rendering, as according to the former no good reason can be given why Paul should command them to select as judges those who had little repute for wisdom in the church. Had he designed this as a command, he would doubtless have directed them to choose their most aged, wise, and experienced men, instead of those least esteemed. It is manifest, therefore, that this is to be read as a question.

"Since you are abundantly qualified yourselves to settle your own differences, do you employ the heathen magistrates, in whom the church can have little confidence for their integrity and justice?" It is designed, therefore, as a severe reproof for what they had been accustomed to do, and an implied injunction that they should do it no more.

Who are least esteemed: exouyenhmenouv. Who are despised, or regarded as of no value or worth; in whose judgment and integrity you can have little or no confidence. According to the interpretation given above of the previous part of the verse, this refers to the heathen magistrates, men in whose virtue, piety, and qualifications for just judgment Christians could have little confidence, and whose judgment must be regarded as, in fact, of very little value and very unlikely to be correct.

That the heathen magistrates were in general very corrupt, there can be no doubt. Many of them were men of abandoned character, of dissipated lives, men who were easily bribed, and men, therefore, in whose judgment Christians could repose little confidence. Paul reproves the Corinthians for going before them with their disputes when they could better settle them themselves.

Others, however, who regard this whole passage as an instruction to Christians to appoint those to determine their controversies who were least esteemed, suppose that this refers to the lowest orders of judges among the Hebrews, to those who were least esteemed or who were almost despised, and that Paul directs them to select even them in preference to the heathen magistrates.

See Lightfoot. But the objection to this is obvious and insuperable. Paul would not have recommended this class of men to decide their causes, but would have recommended the selection of the most wise and virtuous among them. This is proved by 1 Corinthians 6:5, where, in directing them to settle their matters among themselves, he asks whether there is not a wise man among them, clearly proving that he wished their difficulties adjusted, not by the most obscure and the least respected members of the church, but by the most wise and intelligent members.

In the church. By the church. That is, the heathen magistrates show such a character as not to be worthy of the confidence of the church in settling matters of controversy.

I speak to your shame. I declare what is a disgrace to you: that your disputes are taken before pagan courts.

Is it so? Can it be that in the Christian church—the church gathered in refined and enlightened Corinth—there is not a single member so wise, intelligent, and prudent that his fellow believers can have confidence in him and refer their disputes to him? Can this be the case in a church that boasts so much of its wisdom and prides itself so much on the number and qualifications of its intelligent members?