Chapter 6
Those in the church encouraged to settle their disputes with each other within the church, rather than go to civil court. The church is qualified to judge - they will someday judge the world, someday judge angels. To seek judgement outside the church says you don't think anyone inside the church is capable of judging your trivial matters, though qualified by God to judge angels. He goes on to say that going at each other in this way at all - even in the church - is already a defeat for them. God's word says suffer without cause. Be defrauded, and rise above it, don't go at it with lawsuits. Let yourself be defrauded by other church members if that is the only way to "keep it in the church". This does not say to let those outside the church attack the church and it's members with lawsuits and then sit and take that. Does not say that at all.
Worth a look at some differences in translation here:
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? [1Co 6:2 ESV]
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent [to] [constitute] the smallest law courts? [1Co 6:2 NASB]
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? [1Co 6:2 NKJV]
ESV says trivial is about the cases, as does the NKJV. Judge small cases. But NASB somehow inserts "small claims courts" into the church. This seems like a pretty big jump, and an important one. I don't have any "translation notes" on the NASB. My MSB is an NASB version, but it says nothing about how different this version translates the phrase. It caught my eye because of all the Sharia law stuff. If you take the NASB version, then you pretty much have to say they are on the right track - but maybe go too far beyond the trivial in what they address. If you take ESV or NKJV, then are no "formal courts" in the church, but perhaps a mediation. Could even sign a contract to abide by a church mediated solution. Or better yet, just yield.
2021-2, So how broadly are we to apply Paul's use of "smallest" here? Does it mean that a dispute over whether a car with a bad transmission was sold by one church member to another should judged by the church but not a matter like sexual abuse? Or is he using hyperbole to say that all disputes between church members should be resolved within the church, and according to scripture? It seems important given the whole sexual abuse thing going on in the SBC. Perhaps Paul means that civil matters should be arbitrated by the church as contrasted with criminal matters. Yeah, I think that's what it means. God has set up kings and rulers to deal with crimes and misdemeanors, and these should be left to secular authorities. But civil matters are different. We should be able to take care of those ourselves. I don't know how far Sharia goes, but I think this chapter is giving us the limits of where it should go.
After saying they are better off being defrauded by their brothers than letting the civil authorities settle things between them, Paul has a word for the defrauders that are within this church too. He warns them - I think - that if they are doing this to their brothers they better check their hole card about salvation. The thing is, their actions indicate that they are still counted among the unrighteous, and that to any objective observer, they appear to be lost. Paul tells them that unbelievers will inherit no part of the kingdom. He names a number of sins - lifestyle sins, not one off sins - and says people with these lifestyles won't inherit. That is, they are not saved people. And then he says "Such were some of you". But you've been changed by conversion - washed, sanctified, justified. Pulled out of all that, and now able to judge. Not really following the whole line of reasoning here.
2021 - He says the saved would not behave this way. They are behaving this way. Are they then sure that they are saved. And remember also that if it is a brother, then we are better to be defrauded. But if they are not really brothers??? Note also that these verses imply that if you had these "lifestyle" sins before, you are expected to have left them behind at your conversion. Homosexuality, and indeed all sorts of sexual immorality are mentioned, and then there is a second category - that of those who prey on others for their own gain, who are also expected to have changed. Thieves are expected to stop stealing when they are saved. Who would argue that point? Too obvious. But homosexuals are also to stop being homosexuals inside the church. And if they refuse to give up these sins, are they included with the heinous sin of incest and are to be turned over to Satan? Or is that one incest sin so bad that it gets special treatment? I think the point would be that no ongoing sinful behavior, addressed by the church, ignored by the perpetrator, and bringing the appearance of "church protection" of that sin, is not to be tolerated. Such must be put out. This is my opinion of what this text says. Paul explained the logic of the actions he prescribes against the incestuous man. The same logic applies here, with no need for modification.
Read MSB notes, and I am in line with those, but there wasn't anything "extra" there. Just seemed to me there was a thought here that gives 9-11 continuity that I'm missing. Maybe not. (the 2021 note above is what I was looking for. There was more here.)
2021-2, Exactly right after all that about lifestyle problems, we get this verse:
12 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be dominated by anything. [1Co 6:12 ESV]. This does not mean that homosexuality is ok for the saved. It means Christ's death has paid for individual homosexual incidents by saved people. In the same way that an alcoholic, though saved and successful in putting away alcohol, may occasionally succumb, backslide, falter, or whatever word you want to use for a temporary failure to win in the ongoing war against a lifestyle sin - or better yet in the continuing sanctification of the true believer, so homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, and so on may also falter. Those setbacks are exactly and precisely paid for by Christ - along with all the sins that occurred before salvation. It means there is no sin that will result in loss of salvation - perseverance of the saints - so all things are within the law, but there are many things that are contrary to sanctification and so these should be put away. This is not how I previously understood these phrases. I think this way is far more accurate as to Paul's intent with this verse. It does not mean that Christians are free to do whatever they want - as he just got done telling us in the case of the incest going on in the church. Sin is not to be embraced and carried on. I like my phrase above - the church should never put a blanket of protection over ANY sin, and in the case of Corinth, especially not over immorality.
Paul turns back to the apparently rampant immorality in the Corinthian church. These people had decided that since grace is sufficient to cover all sin, that they were free to sin as often and in whatever way they felt like. Including homosexuality, swindling, theft, and adultery. They used the grace that covered their sins to indulge in sins. These didn't come from a Jewish background, but an idolatrous, pagan, corrupt background with no real moral code at all. And they saw grace as the "get out of jail free" card for sin, rather than as a life changing redirection of their lives toward sinlessness, but with forgiveness for failure. Not forgiveness even if you don't try, but forgiveness for failure. Paul's repeated return to sexual immorality of all kinds - which characterized this city even more than Las Vegas ever dreamed of - indicates that this part of Corinthian culture was particularly difficult to excise from their thinking.
This goes right into line with the 2021 thoughts that are above. The Corinthians were indulging themselves in sinful lifestyles, not in an occasional sin. They were indistinguishable in behavior from the culture of that city - a city known for it's open attitude to immorality. This is not how church works. This is not how salvation works. This is carnality, which I now see is indulgence in sin by those who are saved. And it does not result in lost salvation, or Paul would be saying "I'm going to have to come back and help you all get saved again because you've lost your salvation by behaving this way." This would be the place to say that, if ever there was a place to say it, and it is NOT HERE!!! Salvation changes the inner man, but is not an irresistible internal compulsion to always do the right thing. We are still trapped in a sinful shell, and still capable of sin, and still subject to the wiles of the devil. But the purpose of God is for us to be sanctified, over time, becoming more like Jesus - without sin at all - and more in the image of the perfect God. This is perhaps why the saved get judged for what they do with their salvation, and the lost get judged for their sin.
Paul uses the argument that we are part of Christ, and the Spirit is part of us, and we have no leave to include what is pure in our debauchery...yet we cannot separate from them once we are saved. We are part and parcel with the Holy Spirit, and members of the body of Christ. We have a responsibility now to behave as if all we do is what Christ does.
This is an interesting verse, distinguishing - highlighting perhaps - Paul's repeated admonitions against sexual sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. [1Co 6:18 ESV]
MSB says this could be a reference to the intimacy of sexual sin and so it's emotional rather than just physical effects on the person who indulges in it. It grabs and keeps hold beyond what a life of crime say might be able to do. But MSB adds that it is "probably" referring to the venereal disease present then as now, that has such great potential to destroy the body - the body that is the temple of the Holy Spirit. How dare you subject this temple to physical destruction that could have been prevented. It is wanton destruction of a holy object - our own bodies. 2021 - I don't see this being about venereal disease. Overeating is pretty hard on the body too. Leads to all kinds of complications and degradations of the temple of our bodies. Do does alcoholism. Seems more likely that it is about the mystical joining of two people that goes with sexual intimacy. What is done in sexual intimacy cannot be undone - because it is what God hath joined together. We can go on a diet. We can go to rehab. There is no undoing sexual relations. I think that's what Paul means.