Chapter Six

On judicial disputes among Christians (1–11). On intemperance (12–20)

1 Cor 6:1-11. Continuing his speech about undesirable phenomena in the moral life of the Corinthian Church, the Apostle rebukes the Corinthians for seeking redress in their affairs from pagan judges (1–6), and then sets forth the position that disputes over property matters are in general inadmissible among Christians, because they testify to a weakening of brotherly love in them (7–11).

1 Corinthians 6:1. How dare any of you, having a case against another, go to law before the unrighteous rather than before the saints? “How dare.” In the Roman empire, those appointed as judges were people who professed the state religion — that is, pagans. Although these judges judged according to all the customs of Roman law, nevertheless the Apostle calls them “unrighteous” — more precisely: “unjust” (άδικα), because they truly did not know the higher, Christian righteousness. He considers the only appropriate court for a Christian to be one consisting of Christians — consequently, not an official court, but simply an arbitration one, when for the resolution of a dispute people turn to some respected person from their own community. Christians are called “saints” not as individuals but as members of the holy Church of Christ: such people have an understanding of the higher tasks of life and of proper human relationships. — The Corinthians turned to pagan judges, probably out of old habit and because they were confident that a Roman judge would handle their case better. The Apostle, however, does not want principles foreign to Christianity to be introduced into Christian life by means of judicial verdicts — for example, in the hearing of cases between masters and slaves. This, however, did not prevent the Apostle from requiring that Christians submit to pagan authorities and therefore also to judges when these, for their part, presented Christians with certain requirements as members of the state (Rom 13:1-3).

1 Corinthians 6:2. Or do 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? 1 Corinthians 6:3. Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters of everyday life! “Do you not know.” The Apostle here reminds the Corinthians of what he had told them during his stay in Corinth. — “The saints will judge the world.” Eastern church commentators said that this refers to judgment in the figurative sense of the word. At the dread judgment of Christ, Christians by their unblemished conduct will serve as a living and vivid indictment of pagan vice (Matt 25:40). But the context of the speech compels us to see here a reference to an actual judgment in which Christians will be participants. And the Lord Jesus Christ Himself told the Apostles that at His second coming they would sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). The holy John the Theologian extends this right to all believers (Rev 2:26). — “We are to judge angels.” Holy Scripture nowhere says that people will judge the good angels. But the Apostle Paul in the present epistle says that at the second coming of Christ to earth the angelic powers will be “abolished” (1 Cor 15:24). Of course, this refers to the evil angels, “the world rulers of the darkness of this age” (Eph 6:12), and these same angels the Apostle has in mind, of course, in the chapter under discussion. From the book of Enoch (apocryphal) it is clear that even among the Jews there was a belief that God would judge the angels — of course the evil ones (Ph. Bachmann, however, sees here a reference to “angels in general,” as in 1 Cor 3:9, and supposes that the Apostle has in mind the accountability of the good angels insofar as they are guardians of kingdoms and nations. Dan 10).

1 Corinthians 6:4. So if you have cases dealing with everyday life, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? “And you... appoint.” More precisely: appoint, choose (καθίξετε — from the meaning of the speech it must be taken as an imperative). — “As judges.” The discussion is not about pagan judges-officials, because the Apostle himself taught respect for them (Rom 13:4) and because Christians were not the ones who appointed them! The entire speech of the Apostle here is obviously ironic: “For such trifling matters over which you are disputing among yourselves, do not seek as arbitrators men of importance — these matters can be settled by even the most insignificant persons in the Church, from your point of view!” — “Cases dealing with everyday life” (βιωτικά) — more precisely: disputes over material goods.

1 Corinthians 6:5. I say this to your shame. Is it really the case that there is no wise person among you who will be able to judge between one brother and another? 1 Corinthians 6:6. But brother goes to law against brother, and before unbelievers at that. The Apostle means to say: “I have nothing against your choosing suitable persons to resolve your disputes. If I said that your cases can be decided by even the most insignificant persons, I said this only to shame you: for I showed you how little importance I attach to those interests for which you are sacrificing the honor of the Church.”

1 Corinthians 6:7. To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 1 Corinthians 6:8. But you yourselves wrong and defraud — even your brothers. Already in verse 6 the Apostle gave to understand that Christians are not acting well by suing one another — for they are brothers (“brother goes to law against brother”). Now he develops this thought about the impropriety of legal disputes among Christians more thoroughly, pointing out that a Christian ought rather to endure wrong and deprivation than to take anything from brothers even through the courts. — The Apostle does not thereby say that a Christian should not at all defend himself against injustice done to him, but he nonetheless advises against bringing the matter to judicial proceedings. Love for his brothers, which makes every concession, compels the Christian to this (cf. Matt 5:39-42).

1 Corinthians 6:9. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor men who lie with men, 1 Corinthians 6:10. nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers — will inherit the kingdom of God. On the occasion of the Corinthians’ forgetting their sacred obligation to love their brothers in the faith, the Apostle observes that in general among the Corinthians a frivolous attitude toward the obligations they had taken upon themselves — to lead a pure and righteous life — was beginning to take hold. They had begun to imagine that their religious, spiritual gifts could by themselves already open the doors of the heavenly kingdom before them, whatever their conduct might be. No, says the Apostle, this cannot be! In so doing he first enumerates five types of intemperance, and then five types of violation of others’ rights — both the right to property and the right to public respect (“revilers” specifically harm the honor and good name of others).

1 Corinthians 6:11. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. The Apostle had just tried to make an impression on the Corinthians by threatening them with the possibility of losing the right to enter the heavenly kingdom. Now he tries to revive in them the awareness of their Christian dignity, which obliges them to be pure and righteous. The Corinthians must remember that they have already entered a new life through baptism. — “Some.” By this the Apostle means to say that far from all the Corinthians led a wicked way of life before their conversion to Christianity. — “But you were washed.” This undoubtedly denotes the sacrament of baptism (the middle voice used in the Greek text here indicates that baptism was an act of the personal, conscious decision of each believer). — “You were sanctified, you were justified.” These two expressions explain what a person receives in the sacrament of baptism. Baptism — the Apostle means to say — was not a mere symbol. No, it was accompanied by sanctification: that is, in baptism the Holy Spirit was sent down upon the believers, and with the reception of the Spirit believers began a new, grace-filled life (cf. Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 1:21; Eph 1:13), and then in baptism believers also received “justification” — that is, they became righteous by appropriating the righteousness of Christ. The Apostle here places “sanctification” before “justification” because he needed to contrast the present state of the believers with their former state. In another context he does the reverse (cf. 1 Cor 1:30). “In the name of the Lord.” The act of baptism receives such power from the fact that it is performed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ — that is, with the invocation of His name, by His command, by His power, and on the basis of the fact that His redemptive sacrifice for all humanity has been accepted by God — “and by the Spirit of our God” — that is, in baptism the Spirit of God is sent down upon the one being baptized as the beginning of new life (the sacrament of chrismation, united with baptism). — Here there seems to be a departure from the baptismal formula known from the Gospel: “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). But first, the Apostle here evidently does not give and did not intend to give the formula of baptism, and secondly, here too there is an indication of three persons of the Deity — namely: 1) the Lord Jesus Christ, 2) the Spirit, and 3) our God, that is, God the Father. 1 Cor 6:12-20. The Apostle already indicated in verse 9 that in Corinth there were people who thought they could enter the heavenly kingdom without abandoning the sins in which they formerly lived. Now the Apostle speaks more thoroughly about this error, having chiefly in mind, however, one sin — that of intemperance or unchastity. This sin was excused by many Corinthians on the basis of the principle of Christian freedom, and the Apostle refutes such a view by pointing to the great harm done to a person who persists in this sin and to the great responsibility of such a person before God.

1 Corinthians 6:12. “All things are permitted for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are permitted for me,” but I will not be mastered by anything. The Apostle, without doubt, taught in Corinth as in other places about the freedom of the Christian in things that are morally indifferent, which had previously been forbidden under the law of Moses for pedagogical purposes. The expression “all things are permitted for me!” is probably a motto with which the Apostle came forward, and for that reason it became impressed on the minds of the Corinthians. But unfortunately they began to extend the application of this principle to matters that were by no means morally indifferent from the standpoint of Christian morality. Therefore the Apostle considers it necessary to limit the application of the stated principle. It can be applied only where it causes no harm to the person guided by this principle. That is the first point. Secondly, it is necessary to renounce the application of this principle wherever there is a danger of losing one’s freedom and finding oneself enslaved to some habit.

1 Corinthians 6:13. “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food” — but God will do away with both one and the other. The body, however, is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 1 Corinthians 6:14. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Special caution must be observed where the matter concerns bodily purity or chastity. Bearing in mind the words of Christ that “what goes into the mouth does not defile a person” (Matt 15:11), the Apostle says that in relation to food the principle “all things are permitted for me” can be applied, all the more so because those functions of our body that are connected with food will cease on the day of the resurrection and glorification of human bodies: God will abolish, make unnecessary, both these functions and food itself! The matter stands differently with respect to the whole human body. This body cannot be defiled by fornication, because it is destined for the Lord Jesus Christ — to belong to Him and to serve Him as an instrument (cf. Rom 6:13) — just as Christ Himself stands in relation to the body, because He dwells in it and will in time glorify it. By virtue of such a relationship to Christ, the body will not perish. Just as God raised Christ, so He will raise this human body, which during its earthly life was the property and sanctified instrument of Christ the Lord. — “Will raise us up.” Therefore the Apostle identifies the whole human person with this body, for which the body is properly only an instrument of action. — Of course, bearing in mind such an imperishable significance of the body, we must treat it with respect and in no way degrade it. — Here the Apostle includes himself among those who will die and be raised, whereas in other cases (for example, 1 Cor 15:52) he pictures himself as surviving until the second coming. This serves as evidence that the day of the second coming was unknown even to him.

1 Corinthians 6:15. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Absolutely not! Fornication involves two crimes. First, it is a bold seizure (“Shall I then take?”) of property belonging to Christ, and second — the use of what has been seized for an unworthy purpose (“to make them members of a prostitute”).

1 Corinthians 6:16. Or do you not know that the one who is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh. 1 Corinthians 6:17. But the one who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with the Lord. 1 Corinthians 6:18. Flee from sexual immorality. Every sin a person commits is outside the body, but the one who is sexually immoral sins against his own body. The Apostle might have been objected to, against the thought expressed in the second half of verse 15, as follows: “The use of a Christian’s body for the sin of fornication is not yet the taking of it away from Christ. Is this not only a temporary and external misuse of the body?” To this objection the Apostle first responds by citing Holy Scripture — namely the book of Gen 2:24. From this passage it is clear that sexual union with a prostitute, or the sin of fornication, is not something temporary and external, but constitutes a real union of two persons into one body. It is true that in Genesis the text speaks of the marital sexual union of a man and woman who in marriage become “one flesh,” according to the divine determination. But nevertheless, this characteristic feature of the marital union — as a union into one flesh on its natural side — could be transferred also to the unlawful, fornication union of a man with a prostitute, since the latter is also based on the sexual instinct implanted in a person by God. “Perhaps” — as the Apostle seems to say — “fornicators do not wish to enter into such a close union with a prostitute, but nevertheless they do enter into it, because the force of the divine determination operates even where one does not wish its application: sexual intercourse leads people into the closest union of nature and makes of two bodies one.” — And why is such a union morally impossible for a Christian? To this, in the Apostle’s thought, one must answer as follows: the Christian thereby enters into a domain which, according to 1 Cor 4:9, lies outside the domain of the kingdom of God. The one who unites with a prostitute alienates his body from subjection to Christ and places it in dependence upon an anti-Christian force. The Apostle, however, does not draw such a conclusion himself, because the matter was already clear without it. Instead, he says that “the one who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit” (the words “with the Lord” are not read in the best editions). “Union with” the Lord — that is, with Christ — the Apostle designates by the same term (κολλᾶσθαι) as “sexual union” with a prostitute (v. 16): it is nothing other than a close, soul-and-body-embracing communion between the believer and Christ. This union is then, in its essence, of a spiritual character, since the power that appropriates the body and soul of the Christian to Christ is “the Spirit” (1 Cor 6:19), which is in Christ the source of the new glorified life in the glorified body (cf. 2 Cor 3:18). The Apostle evidently does not limit himself in this case (v. 17) to indicating that the Christian enters into a close unity with Christ, but adds: “becomes one spirit.” He means to say by this that the Christian must avoid fornication precisely because it represents only a gross sensual, bodily union that does not attain the moral character which the marital sexual union attains — the latter gradually becoming a spiritual communion as well. The believer in Christ is a temple of the Spirit and therefore cannot be, so to speak, a temple of the flesh. And so, the Apostle concludes: “Flee from sexual immorality!” In order to instill an even greater aversion to the sin of fornication, the Apostle says that every other sin is “outside the body,” whereas the fornicator sins precisely against his own body (18). He thus attributes a special importance to the sin of fornication. But in what sense should his words about the relation of sins to the body be understood? Some commentators say that the Apostle hints by this that the sin of fornication, unlike other sins, especially exhausts the human body. But one cannot agree with such an understanding, because the same effect on the human body is also produced by drunkenness. Others (Godet) distinguish in a person two bodies: an external one, constantly changing in its composition, and an internal, eternal one, which is the one that must be raised for future life — and it is this last one that the Apostle has in mind here... However, there is no basis anywhere for such a distinction. And why could drunkenness, for example, not be equally harmful to this inner body as fornication? It is simpler to convey the Apostle’s thought as follows. Fornication is such a terrible sin that, unlike other sins, it harms precisely the human body by placing it under the power of a sinful force operating in an unconstrained sensual passion — placing it precisely through organic union with the representative of that sinful force, the prostitute. One might add to this that no other sin, except fornication, is directly called forth by a bodily need: the body, for example, does not necessarily require wine to satisfy thirst — it can perfectly well be sustained by water; hence drunkenness is by no means the result of the action of a bodily need. Fornication, on the other hand, is rooted in a natural need residing in the human body.

1 Corinthians 6:19. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 1 Corinthians 6:20. For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. The Apostle wonders whether the Corinthians have forgotten the high calling of their body. Indeed, the fornicator robs his body of the honor of being the temple of the Holy Spirit! This sin is all the more unpardonable in that the body no longer belongs to the person himself: it has been purchased for a certain (great) price (the sacrifice of the Son of God). Therefore we must give glory in our body to its owner — God — glory consisting in the worthy and holy use of this gift of God entrusted to us. “You have no authority over the flesh for the satisfaction of sinful desires; you have this authority only for the fulfillment of God’s commandments” (John Chrysostom).