Is Paul talking about people inside or outside the church as judges?

Explanation:

When we look at the grammar we notice that Paul includes μὲν οὖν (nay, rather) at the beginning of the verse.² Such a construction is used as a marker to indicate that Paul is introducing a new idea. He has been noting that the Corinthians should not be going before secular courts to arbitrate their cases. Then he introduces a new idea with μὲν οὖν, adding that when the Corinthians have trivial cases, they should appoint internal judges.

Another grammatical indicator that Paul is explaining to the Corinthians that they ought to appoint internal judges is the conditional marker ἐάν (if). When ἐάν is used with a subjunctive it often signals a future conditional statement. In this case the subjunctive is ἔχω (to have) so the condition (protasis) is set up as, if [ἐάν] you have trivial matters to settle. The future condition is captured by the follow-up clause (apodosis), appoint the despised in the church as arbiters.³ In other words, Paul identifies the problem with the Corinthians’ handling of trivial matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1–3 and identifies in 1 Corinthians 6:4 the solution for future occurrences: The problem is that you have been bringing trivial matters to secular courts. The solution is to bring matters before each other in the church.

Counterargument:

It is possible that Paul uses μὲν οὖν to indicate that he will now summarize what he said in the previous verses. The grammar reflects a change, but not a change of topic. He begins by asking how the Corinthians could take each other to secular courts (1 Corinthians 6:1). Then he asks two rhetorical questions. Do they not know that they will judge the world (1 Corinthians 6:2), and angels (1 Corinthians 6:3)? Then he gets back to his point: if then (μὲν οὖν) they have these trivial matters, why do they use the secular courts? Further, the conditional marker ἐάν can just as likely be used to indicate a logical connection as to introduce a future conditional.⁴ Paul seems to be stating a logical fact and asking a question, If you have trivial cases, you take them to secular courts, but why?

Response to counterargument:

There are two likely candidates for how we should take the conjunction οὖν in this context. It is used to either introduce a conclusion or a summary. If it is used to introduce a conclusion, now that Paul has explained that the Corinthians should not bring trivial matters before secular courts, he offers his concluding thought: when you have trivial matters, judge them internally. If he uses οὖν to summarize his previous statements, he may be reiterating the same rhetorical question: are you really bringing these cases to secular judges? Given the fact that Paul has already asked three rhetorical questions (1 Corinthians 6:1; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 6:3), it is most likely the case that he is offering a conclusion.

Explanation:

Paul explains that if the Corinthians have trivial matters to resolve they appoint as judges those who have no standing, or those who are rejected/despised. To whom does he refer here, the secular courts or the Christians in Corinth? In other words, is he asking the rhetorical question, Why do you bring these matters before the secular courts (who are despised)? or is he stating a command, Bring trivial matters before the ones who are despised (the members of the church)?

For two reasons, it is best to think that those who have no standing refers to the members of the church. First, it is hard to see why Paul would use such a strong term to refer to the secular authorities.⁵ Such a characterization does not reflect the missional attitude of Paul. Further, he upholds the authority of the courts for criminal matters so it is hard to think that he would undermine them with such a pejorative term (Romans 13:1–5).⁶

Second, Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:28 uses the same verb to refer to the believers. He writes that God chose what is low and despised in the world to bring to nothing the things that are. The Corinthians would have recognized when they reached 1 Corinthians 6:4 that he is using the term those who have no standing to refer to the Corinthian Christians.⁷

Counterargument:

It is difficult to think that Paul would refer to the Christians as the ones who are despised. This is especially in light of 1 Corinthians 12:21–25, where he explains that the church is the body of Christ, and there is no part of the body that is lesser or greater than another.⁸ On the other hand, it makes sense for Paul to call the secular courts the ones who are despised, in light of the previous verses. In 1 Corinthians 6:1 he refers to the court as unrighteous, and he can hardly believe that, considering Christians will judge the world, the Corinthians would utilize secular courts for judgment. For Paul to call the courts the ones who are rejected simply means that the standard of the secular courts is rejected by the judge who lives according to the standard of God.

Response to counterargument:

Given the ambiguity and the harshness of the term, it is difficult to see how Paul could refer to either the Christians or the secular courts as those who have no standing. Still, he has done so, referring to one of the parties, and therefore we have to take the evidence before us and decide. In 1 Corinthians 5:9–13, Paul makes clear that he is not interested in judging people outside the church. Rather, the Corinthians need to learn to judge those inside. Further, as stated previously, we know from Paul that he respects the secular authorities (Romans 13:1–5). On the other hand, he has already used the term for those who have no standing to refer to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:28, but with reference to a redemptive context. Even though the Corinthians are despised from the world’s perspective, they are used by God to bring down the world so no one would boast before God (1 Corinthians 1:28–29). Given Paul’s previous use of the term and the fact that he just explained to the Corinthians that they are not to judge those outside the church, it seems much more likely that he uses the term to refer to the Corinthians.

Explanation:

Paul explains that if the Corinthians experience trivial matters, they should appoint the ones who are despised in the church to arbitrate the matter. If Paul is asking a question, he is wondering why the Corinthians would appoint those who are despised by the church (secular judges) to be arbiters. Of course, the Corinthians church members were not in a position to appoint judges.⁹ This implies that Paul is not asking a question but explaining to the Corinthians that when they have a matter to settle, they should appoint someone from inside the church. In other words, even the nobodies from within the church are better judges than the secular courts.¹⁰

Counterargument:

The verb to appoint does not only carry the sense of appoint as in appoint a judge to a court. Rather, the verb can just as likely mean to sit for a judgment, or to make a ruling.¹¹ When taken this way, we can take 1 Corinthians 6:4 as a question. Paul wants to know why the Corinthians would use the secular court, which is despised by the church, to sit for a judgment on trivial matters.

Possible weakness:

The weakness of this view is that it is hard to square with the first clause of 1 Corinthians 6:5 where Paul writes, I say this to your shame. This view argues that the grammar of 1 Corinthians 6:4, especially the μὲν οὖν and the ἐάν conditional marker, indicate that Paul is changing topics. This is possible, but one could also make the case that he does not conclude his initial argument that begins at 1 Corinthians 6:1 until 1 Corinthians 6:5. The statement I say this to your shame would summarize Paul’s entire line of thought in 1 Corinthians 6:1–4 only if 1 Corinthians 6:4 refers to judges outside the church. If we take 1 Corinthians 6:4 to refer to judges inside the church, it is more difficult to see what Paul says to the Corinthian church’s shame.

Explanation:

We can take the clause Why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? in one of two ways, and these depend on whether Paul ends the clause with the imperatival or indicative form of to appoint/to lay before. If he ends the clause with an imperative, he is making a statement or command, which suggests that the ones who are appointed to judge are inside the church. In other words, he says, Appoint judges who are despised in the church. If he uses to appoint in the indicative, the clause could form a question, as in, Why do you appoint judges who are despised by the church? The indicative lends to the notion that the judges are outside the church. So, which does Paul use?

Since both meanings make sense, we can look to the grammar for clues. When we do, we realize that it is very rare to end a sentence with an imperative verb.¹⁴ This means that most likely Paul is using the verb in the indicative. Since the context allows for the indicative, we should assume that he does not use the imperative and therefore refers to those outside the church as judges.¹⁵

Counterargument:

This argument will not do for the simple fact that Paul often uses the imperatival form of a verb at the end of a clause. See, for example, Romans 12:14; 1 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 7:21; 1 Corinthians 10:31; 1 Corinthians 11:33; 1 Corinthians 14:20; 1 Corinthians 16:1; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 5:11; Ephesians 5:11; Colossians 3:15.¹⁶

Explanation:

The Corinthian church comprises people from a lower class of society. In fact, Paul characterizes the church with the same verb, to reject/despise, in 1 Corinthians 1:28, stating that God used what is low and despised to bring to nothing the things that are. Now Paul uses that same verb in an ironic sense to note that from a Christian perspective, it is the secular courts who are despised.¹⁷ The point is, how could the Corinthian church care so much about trivial matters, and how could they bring these before the judges who have no standing in the church?¹⁸

Counterargument:

It is possible that Paul is being ironic by calling the judges outside the church the ones who are despised. Of course, it is just as likely that he is being ironic by saying this about the ones who are inside the church. In fact, Paul has already used the term to describe the Christians (1 Corinthians 1:28), so it would make more sense for them to connect the term with themselves rather than the judges outside the church (see Ιnterpretation 1, argument 2)).

Possible weakness:

It is difficult to choose between Ιnterpretation 1 and Ιnterpretation 2, because both views fit the context and the grammar. Also, the views are not opposed because each view implies the other. If the Corinthians are to judge matters internally, this implies not using secular courts. And if Paul is wondering why the Corinthians use the secular courts, he implies that they should judge matters internally. One potential weakness of this view is that the term for those who have no standing does seem overly harsh to designate unbelievers.¹⁹ In 1 Corinthians 5:12–13 Paul cautions the Corinthians not to judge outsiders but to leave that to God. This makes it strange for him to suddenly call them despised in the sense of being completely useless.²⁰