The Rebuke for Lawsuits Before Unbelievers (1 Corinthians 6:1–6)

Having mentioned internal judgment in spiritual matters, the Apostle desires that a) Christians also judge their temporal affairs among themselves, not bringing them before pagan judges (1 Cor. 1–6); and better yet would be if b) by mutual concession and readiness rather to suffer injury than to inflict it, they did not allow disputes to arise between them (1 Cor. 7–8). St. Chrysostom notes that the previous discourse provided occasion for this condemnation; it seems to be an insertion, and, having finished it, the Apostle returns again to the former subject, that is, to the condemnation of lustful and in general sensual life.

h) Disputes among Christians should not be judged by pagan judges (1 Cor. 6:1–6)

1 Cor. 6:1. When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?

“Does he dare?” The Apostle begins his discourse directly and with emotion. The question shows how displeasing this matter is to him because of the dishonor to the name of Christ brought by it, for the honor of which he was always zealous. “To have a grievance against another”—to have a disputed matter with someone, as is clear from what follows, over temporal things.

He calls the heathen “unrighteous” and Christians “saints.” Christians in baptism take on an obligation before their conscience—to observe all righteousness and do all good, and for the fear of God allow nothing contrary to conscience; so that conscientiousness becomes their distinguishing mark. Among the heathen, on the other hand, moral powers are in decline, and they are presumed always ready to twist their conscience. The Apostle, knowing also by hearsay that the Corinthian Christians, perhaps chiefly from among the heathen, go to pagan judges in case of disagreements, either from old habit or because it is shameful to appear with a lawsuit in a Christian assembly—at mere recollection of this he becomes indignant and says: does he dare? How does one resolve to do this? What is this like?

“St. Chrysostom says: ‘Again the Apostle condemns them here as a known fact; there he said: ‘Is it not reported that there is sexual immorality among you’; here: ‘Does he dare?’ From the very beginning he expresses anger and shows that this matter is in no way suitable. Is it not strange, he asks, to choose an enemy as a mediator for reconciliation with a friend? Is it not shameful and degrading that a heathen sits to judge a Christian? And see how he expresses himself: ‘to go to law before the unrighteous, not before the saints’—by the very names condemning the unreason of the deed and turning them away from it. He did not say: before the unbelievers, but before the ‘unrighteous’; he uses such an expression as was especially necessary for his intended purpose, to correct and turn them away from such a deed. Speaking of judgment and having in mind that those bringing suit desire nothing so much from judges as justice, he thus instructs them, as if to say: where are you going and what are you doing, man, acting contrary to your own desire, seeking justice from unrighteous men? But to incline them to appeal to their own, see how he exalts them and presents them as worthy of all confidence, first calling them saints, then calling them judges of the world. At first he does not reject judgment among the faithful; but when he has already strongly condemned them, then he altogether forbids judgment. If, he says, it is absolutely necessary to judge, then it should not be before unbelievers, but it would be better not to judge at all. But he expresses this last thought later (1 Cor. 6:7–8), while now he merely forbids going to judgment before outsiders. It was hard to hear the prohibition against judging directly; therefore he does not at once command this, but first only changes the judges, turning those who would judge from external judges to the Church.’”

1 Cor. 6:2. Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to handle trivial cases?

He proves why it is unsuitable for Christians to judge before heathens; because, he says, Christians—saints—will judge the world, that is, unbelievers, the heathen, and below, angels too, also unbelievers. If they will judge the heathen, then clearly the heathen are below them and heathen courts are not for them; it is unworthy of you, he says, to go to these courts. The matter is proven. The force of the proof lies in the certainty of the circumstance that saints, Christians, will judge the world. When the Apostle asks: “Do you not know?” by the question itself he makes it clear that this was known to the Christians of that time. Therefore the Apostle’s purpose was achieved even without explanation of how the saints will judge the world. He does not provide it. But for us now this is not quite clear. The judge of the world is the Lord alone. He himself, in depicting judgment, makes it clear that both the faithful and the unfaithful will be subject to him, and that having carried out judgment, he will say to some: “Come, blessed,” and to others: “Depart, cursed.” How then will the saints judge, if they themselves will be judged? — To this we say: the Apostle’s word is not false; the saints will judge the world and the angels, and how—we do not know. Our ignorance does not diminish the truth of the apostolic word. But would this answer satisfy anyone? Everyone wishes to reach a decision, but how to base decisions on nothing, it is inevitable to construct suppositions. Many have constructed them. There is no point in listing them. Let us take the one which all our commentators unanimously accept. Here are the words of Theodoret: “He said: ‘will judge,’ instead of ‘will condemn.’ For this is made clear by the following words: ‘if the world is to be judged by you’(εν υμιν) [lit. ‘in you’]. Thus ‘the men of Nineveh… and the queen of the South will condemn this generation’ (Matt. 12:41–42); thus the twelve Apostles will judge ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Matt. 19:28), that is, will condemn them, will condemn them because they themselves came from them and believed in the Lord, and underwent countless forms of death, and did not deny their faith in him. So believers from among the heathen will condemn those who did not believe in the saving preaching.” Here is what St. Chrysostom says: “The saints will judge, not by sitting down and demanding an account, but by condemning. This is what the Apostle expresses by the words: ‘if the world is to be judged by you’ [lit. ‘in you’]. He did not say ‘by you’ but ‘by you,’ [in your holiness], just as the Lord said: ‘The queen of the South will rise up and condemn this generation’; and ‘The men of Nineveh will rise up and condemn this generation’ (Matt. 12:41–42). They see the same thing as we do, participate in the same, and yet if we turn out to be believers and they unbelievers, they will not be able to claim ignorance; we will condemn them by what we have done. And many similar means of condemnation will be found then.” So too St. John of Damascus, Oecumenius, Photius in Oecumenius, and Theophylact. The last note of St. Chrysostom shows that other ways of condemning the unbelievers by the faithful are possible. But all are condemnations, not judgment. On this resolution let us stop. It is greatly supported by—εν υμιν—in you, as if in your person, or showing through you, the judge will pronounce judgment, and will be justified in his judgment by you.

“If so, the holy Paul says further, then ‘are you not competent to handle trivial cases?;’ as if to say: ‘Your conduct brings you shame and inexpressible dishonor. Corinthians, it seems were ashamed to be judged before their own judges; therefore he says: on the contrary, be ashamed that you are judging before outsiders; their courts are trivial, not yours’ (St. Chrysostom).”

1 Cor. 6:3. Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!

“The Apostle uses the expression ‘are to judge’ again in place of ‘will condemn’; by angels he meant demons, because formerly they were angels. The saints will condemn them because, though clothed in flesh, they were concerned with divine service, while they in their bodiless nature loved wickedness” (Theodoret).

St. Chrysostom refutes the opinion of those who think that the Apostle means by angels the priests. The Apostle, he says, contrasts with the angels temporal matters (temporal — βιωτικα — temporal, matters of this life); and such matters are not opposed to priests, for they too are men of this life; to angels they are opposed in the sense that by their nature they have no need of temporal things. “No, the Apostle speaks here of evil spirits, of those angels of whom Christ speaks: ‘Depart from me… into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41). When these bodiless powers prove themselves worse than us, clothed in flesh, they will undergo the heaviest punishment.”

1 Cor. 6:4. If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?

This place is somewhat obscure, because of the uncertainty of who are “those who are least esteemed by the church.” The first words are clear: “If then you have temporal disputes,” that is, if you have temporal matters or conflicts that need to be settled by court procedure. Clear too are the last words: “do you lay them before,” that is, you set on the judge’s seat for judgment over yourselves, or choose as judges. But what the words “those who are least esteemed by the church” mean is not clear. And this obscures the whole text.

“Those who are least esteemed by the church” can be understood in two ways: either as persons who belong to the Church, believing members of the Church, but such as occupy the last places in it, standing lower than others; or as persons outside the Church, unbelievers, who for that very reason are reckoned as worthless in the Church—they mean nothing to the Church and its members, they are “least esteemed.”

If under “those least esteemed” we understand those outside the Church, then, placing this passage in connection with the preceding, we get: you have angels to judge, not much more so temporal matters? But you, having temporal disputes, set on the judge’s seat, or take as judges, such persons who in the Church have no significance whatsoever, as unbelievers, or are nothing before the Church and its members. What an absurdity! —I say this to your shame. — Now in the Greek text this place is made a question. This does not change its sense, in the form presented, but strengthens it, giving it a tone of reproachful disapproval.

If under “those least esteemed” we understand persons belonging to the Church, but not visible in the church, then, placing this passage in connection with the preceding: “you have angels to judge, not much more so temporal matters?”—we can continue the discourse thus: as for temporal matters, if you have need to settle them among yourselves by outside judgment, take for this the last believers and set them on the judge’s seat. The thought will be either this: take you the very last of Christians—and they will judge; or thus: take you, whatever come—Christians, even the very lowest, and entrust them with judgment over yourselves, only never go to pagan judges. With the first thought there will be heard the suggestion that temporal matters are in themselves, and all the more among Christians, to be regarded as trifling, so trifling that the very last Christian will settle them; and at the same time there will be a reproach: but you go to courts, as if with some important matter and to important persons, when both the one and the other are trivial. With the second thought there will be heard a suggestion of aversion to judgment before the heathen, as a deed in no way suited to Christians.

All our commentators read not “do you lay them before” but “set before”—and in interpretation they express the latter of the thoughts brought forward. In the words in question they see a response to an anticipated objection: do not go, you say, to pagan judges; but to whom among ours should one turn? There is no one fit to judge, so perforce one goes to the heathen.—Here are the words of St. Chrysostom: “Wishing to instruct us with special force that in nothing whatsoever should we turn to external judges, and seeing the objection that would arise, he resolves it in advance. The meaning of his words is as follows: perhaps someone will say that there is among you not a single wise man or one capable of judging a matter; what then? even if, he says, there were not a single wise man among you, entrust this matter to the very lowest.—Pointing to the least esteemed, he does not say that in place of judges there should be incapable men, but he shames them. That judgment should be entrusted to men capable of settling matters, this he expressed below in the words: ‘Is there not even one wise man among you’; and in order to completely silence them, he says that even if there were not a single wise man among them, it would be better to entrust the matters to the judgment of the unwise than to judge before outsiders.’”

1 Cor. 6:5. I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one wise enough among you to decide between members of the family?

“I say this to your shame.” I speak thus to shame you, to the shame of your unreason, that you go to others when at home you cannot count how many there are capable of doing this, or to shame the empty excuse that there is no one to judge. In the Church there will surely always be found wise men capable of settling any matter and bringing peace among the brothers. St. Chrysostom says: “‘I say this to your shame.’ He condemns such an objection [that there is no one to judge] as an empty pretext; therefore he continues: ‘Is there not even one wise man among you?’ Is this so scarce with you? Are wise men so rare among you? By the following addition he strikes them even more; for having said: ‘Is there not even one wise man among you,’ he adds: ‘able to decide between members of the family?’ When brother is tried by brother, for a mediator in the dispute there is no need for great wisdom and rhetorical skill, but the disposition and kinship [spiritual] can greatly aid in the resolution of disagreement.”

1 Cor. 6:6. But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers.

“A twofold offense: that he judges, and that he judges before unbelievers” (St. Chrysostom). Or even threefold: “First, that a believer judges; then, that he judges with a fellow believer, and worst of all, that he judges before an unbelieving judge” (Theodoret). If judging with a brother is in itself a sinful act, then is one who judges before the external worthy of any excuse? It is greatly shameful, if among brothers there cannot be a reconciler, the priest, but there is found need to resort to outsiders. “And that before unbelievers,” he says. “See how prudently he first lowered the judges, calling them unrighteous, and now shames the Corinthians, calling these judges unbelievers?” (St. Chrysostom).