1 Coríntios 6
George MacDonald · Citado em PreceptAustin
1 Coríntios 6
MacDonald - News had come to Paul that some Christians were going to law against their fellow believers—before the judges of this world. So he lays down these instructions of lasting value for the church. Note the repetition of the expression “Do you not know” (1 Cor 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19). Paul Apple's introductory comments on chapter 6 - Remember the book written by Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel - that laid a lot of the groundwork for the basis for nouthetic counseling. Adams made the argument that believers would be wrong to submit to the counseling of unsaved psychologists. Instead believers have the resources they need to confront the most serious problems of life - the resources of the Word of God and the Spirit of God. In a similar vein, the Apostle Paul argues in this passage that the Church is Competent to Judge as well. Why would we ever consider taking a fellow believer to court and submit to the “wisdom” of unsaved judges? This would be damaging to the testimony of Christ. We live in a society that goes to court at the drop of a hat. Look at the number of lawyers ... the backlog of court cases ... the ridiculous amounts of some of the settlements for damages, etc. Look at how people demand that their “rights” be protected and have the expectation of compensation if they are wronged in any way. Look at how this contributes to the high cost of liability insurance. Some commentators want to temper Paul’s tone in this passage and say that believers should try to avoid suing fellow believers. But the clear import of the teaching is that believers should never sue fellow believers! Remember the context from chapter 5 where believers were reminded of their responsibility to judge among themselves. “Not only is the church to judge in matters of morality, but in other matters having to do with everyday life (civil situations).” (Gil Rugh) (1 Corinthians Commentary) Craig Keener - Like modern North American society, Roman society was extremely litigious. Cases began to be heard at dawn and sometimes could be argued as late as sunset. Judges were always chosen from among the well-to-do, and most legal disputes revolved around money Members of the upper class received better treatment in the law courts; indeed, this preference was written into penalties prescribed in the laws. Further, social inferiors could not sue members of the upper class. But for Paul, even the lowliest believers are equipped to judge cases. (IVPBBCNT) Does any one of you, when he has a case (pragma) against his neighbor - Young's Literal = "Dare any one of you, having a matter with the other, go to be judged before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?" The is a rhetorical question. Paul is of course not speaking of criminal cases like robbery, murder, etc. Schreiner has an insightful comment noting that "The first word in the Greek is the word dare, (see Young's Literal above) showing that appealing to the ‘unrighteous’ (adikos) to resolve a legal dispute (pragma) with another believer is outrageous. The case should be brought before the ‘saints’ (hagios). The use of the word ‘unrighteous’ is intentional since believers are acting unrighteously (adikeite, v. 8), acting like the ‘unrighteous’ (adikoi, ESV, v. 9) who will not enter the kingdom. On the other hand, the believers are God’s ‘saints’ (CSB; 1:2; 6:11), yet they are not acting like God’s holy people but like the people of the world. (TNTC-1 Cor) Recall from the previous context there are some factors that might predispose these saints to lawsuits and petty legal squabbles. In 1 Cor 1:10+ we see they were have church divisions and in 1 Cor 3:3+ Pauls said " you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?." Jealousy and strife among fleshly men would certainly predispose them to legal disagreements between members in the body at Corinth. Arnold - Surely the Apostle Paul did not mean that a Christian should never go to the secular law courts against unbelievers. If a lawsuit is brought against us by an unbeliever, it may be necessary for us to defend ourselves. Nor was Paul saying the Christian would not get justice before the secular courts because the courts were corrupt. Actually, the Romans as a whole had an excellent law system. Nor was he saying a Christian should never use the secular courts to defend his cause for even Paul himself said, "I appeal to Caesar". The thing Paul is critical of is Christians taking other Christians before the secular courts. He was stunned that one Christian would prosecute another before the secular courts where an unbeliever was presiding. Even the Jews understood that disputes were to be settled among the brotherhood, for they had a maxim which said, "It is a statute which binds all Israelites, that if one Israelite has a cause against another, it must not be prosecuted before the Gentiles.” Yet these carnal Corinthians had not even reached the Jewish standards and it was a disgrace. Paul’s point was that all lawsuits between Christians should be handled by church courts within the local church and not in the secular courts. Baker has an interesting note on a case against - means to bring a case or, as in the NLT, a lawsuit, against someone. The language makes it clear that this is not a criminal case but one involving property or perhaps business matters. In civil cases, such as these in Corinth, two citizens would have been appointed by the court to adjudicate the matter Hodge - The third evil in the Corinthian church that the apostle endeavors to correct was taking lawsuits to heathen judges. There was no need for this. The Roman laws allowed the Jews to settle their disputes about property by arbitration among themselves. And the early Christians, who were not distinguished as a distinct class from the Jews, doubtless had the same privilege. It is not necessary, however, to assume that the apostle is referring to that privilege here. It was enough that these civil suits might be arranged without the disgraceful spectacle of Christian suing Christian before heathen magistrates. The rabbis say, “It is a statute that binds all Israelites, that if one Israelite has a case against another, it must not be brought before the Gentiles.” Craig Keener has an interesting intro comment - Having advocated that the church act as a court with regard to sexual offenses (chap. 5), Paul now argues for the necessity of church courts in his society (6:1–8) and then returns to sexual offenses (6:9, 12–20). It is possible that the litigants of 6:1–8 are the father and son of 5:1; if so, such litigation would clearly be displaying the church’s dirty laundry before the world. “Defraud” (6:7–8) favors this suggestion (cf. 1 Thess 4:4–6); “why not be wronged?” (6:7) may be against it. Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world had their own courts in their synagogues. Bringing internal disputes of the Jewish or Christian communities before secular magistrates was a luxury these minority religions could ill afford; there was already too much slander against them in the broader society. (IVPBBCNT) Dare to (present tense - continually) go to law before the unrighteous (adikos) and not before the saints - Dare is the verb tolmao (present tense = indicates the action was in process) which is used negatively with a component of boldness or insolence (like our phrase "how dare you!"). Literally "to be judged by the unjust one.” Clearly Paul is surprised about this practice among believers. Literally this reads "go to be judged before the unrighteous." Note the juxtaposition of unrighteous (unholy) with saints (holy). Unrighteous is used in this context as a synonym for an unbeliever (and again with same meaning as unrighteous in 1 Cor 6:9+) and not to mean that the judicial system/judges were not fair and just, but that they were not "justified by faith" so not believers. What is fascinating is where these cases were held -- the unbelieving judges would sit on the bema seat of the civil magistrate, which was located in the center of the Corinthian agora (marketplace) and was a place the Greeks would come for entertainment that might result from a good legal battle. One can imagine the "leaven" effect of two Christians going after each other, this word spreading throughout the entire city. One can imagine the call "Come on folks, we've got another great Jerry Springer show for today's entertainment!" And the Church of Jesus Christ is sullied! Sad! Hodge - What Paul was complaining of was not that the Corinthians could not get justice at the hands of heathen magistrates, but that they acted unworthily of their dignity as Christians in seeking justice from such a source. Paul himself appealed to Caesar. It was, therefore, no sin in his eyes to seek justice from a heathen judge when it could not be obtained in any other way. But it was a sin and a disgrace in his view for Christians to appeal to heathen magistrates to settle disputes among themselves.
1 Coríntios 6
MacDonald explains that "We know from Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4, 9 that angels will be judged. We also know that Christ will be the Judge (John 5:22). It is because of our union with Him that we can be spoken of as judging angels in a coming day. If we are considered qualified to judge angels, we should be able to handle the everyday problems that arise in this life. (Believer's Bible Commentary) How much more matters of this life - The phrase How much more adds emphasis and makes the sarcastic contrast more obvious. It also shows the argument is from greater to lesser (world/angel judgment versus judging believer differences). Schreiner - We see a similar kind of argument in Hebrews 2:5–18, where rule of the coming world belongs to human beings and not to angels. This rule is given to believers because they belong to Jesus Christ, for Jesus will allow believers to sit on the throne with him to rule the world (Rev. 3:21), and this rule presumably includes rule over angels. If believers are going to rule over angels, they should be able to resolve disputes over matters of ordinary life. (Ibid) Matters of this life (982)(biotikos from bios - possessions of life, life in its concrete outward manifestations) means anything that pertains to what is found in the ordinary course of life, everyday matters. It contrasts with zoe the life principle. A Spanish proverb says, “The Jews ruin themselves at their passover; the Moors, at their marriages; and the Christians, in their lawsuits.” Question: What does it mean that we will judge angels? Answer: In his letter to the church in Corinth, the apostle Paul tells us that believers will not only judge the world but also judge angels: “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world ... Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3). Scripture teaches that the fallen angels will be judged by God (Isaiah 24:21-22; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; Revelation 21:10). But what does Paul mean when he says the saints will also judge angels? What we can surmise from this 1 Corinthians passage is that we, as God’s children, will be given a higher position than the angels. We’re not only created in God’s image but redeemed by Christ (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:9; Luke 1:68; Ephesians 1:7). Angels are not created in God’s image and are not redeemed by Christ (Hebrews 1:14; 2:16). Also, God sends His angels to serve His saints, i.e., those who are to inherit eternal life (Hebrews 1:14; see also Psalm 34:7; Psalm 91:11). Additionally, we know that the Greek word for “judge,” krino, also means “to rule or govern.” This strongly implies that we will have authority over the holy angels, for they have no sin for which to be “judged” in the sense of “condemned.” Most likely, the meaning of this passage is that believers in heaven will take part in the judgment of the fallen angels and exercise some authority over the holy angels. Christ has been exalted above all the angels (see Ephesians 1:20-23), and it seems reasonable that those who are in Him and made in His likeness (Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:49; Ephesians 4:24; 1 John 3:2) will share in His authority, including His authority over the angels (Matthew 19:28; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:4). GotQuestions.org 1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? Amplified -If then you do have such cases of everyday life to decide, why do you appoint [as judges to lay them before] those who [from the standpoint] of the church count for least and are without standing? Wuest's Paraphrase - Therefore, if you may be having courts [for the adjudication of your private matters], those who are least esteemed and of the most humble station in the local assembly, (Eerdmans Publishing - used by permission) NET 1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have ordinary lawsuits, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? NLT 1 Corinthians 6:4 If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? ESV 1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? NIV 1 Corinthians 6:4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! GNT 1 Corinthians 6:4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τούτους καθίζετε; KJV 1 Corinthians 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. YLT 1 Corinthians 6:4 of the things of life, indeed, then, if ye may have judgment, those despised in the assembly -- these cause ye to sit; ASV 1 Corinthians 6:4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church? CSB 1 Corinthians 6:4 So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge? NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? NRS 1 Corinthians 6:4 If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? NAB 1 Corinthians 6:4 If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? NJB 1 Corinthians 6:4 But when you have matters of this life to be judged, you bring them before those who are of no account in the Church! GWN 1 Corinthians 6:4 When you have cases dealing with this life, why do you allow people whom the church has a low opinion of to be your judges? BBE 1 Corinthians 6:4 If then there are questions to be judged in connection with the things of this life, why do you put them in the hands of those who have no position in the church? So if you: 1Co 5:12 who: Ac 6:2-4 1 Corinthians 6 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries WHY LET SECULAR JUDGES BE YOUR JUDGE So if - This is a THIRD CLASS CONDITIONAL sentence, which means potential action. Amplified "If then you do have such cases of everyday life to decide." You have law courts dealing with matters of this life - NET = "So if you have ordinary lawsuits." Matters of this life (biotikos) means those things pertaining to ordinary, daily life and living. Do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church - NLT- "why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church?y," Paul implies that the least of Christians should be more competent in justice than the wisest of pagans. Paul is not dishonoring judges, but simply saying they have no part in the church and do not understand the relationship of one Christian to another as brethren, members of the same family of God. MacDonald adds "Unsaved judges are not given places of honor or esteem by the local church. They are, of course, respected for the work they are doing in the world, but as far as church matters are concerned they do not have any jurisdiction. Thus Paul is asking the Corinthians: When matters arise between you requiring the impartial judgment of some third party, do you go outside the confines of the church and set men to judge you who are not recognized by the church for spiritual discernment?" (Ibid)
1 Coríntios 6
MacDonald - To further emphasize the need for personal purity in our lives and for guarding our bodies from impurity, the apostle reminds us that our bodies are members of Christ. Do you not know - This is a characteristic phrase used repeatedly by Paul to refer to things the believers should have known, things he had previously taught them, but which they apparently (because of their actions and attitudes) had forgotten or chosen to ignore. Phrase - Do you not know Gen. 44:15; Jdg. 15:11; 2 Sam. 2:26; 2 Sam. 3:38; 2 Chr. 13:5; 2 Chr. 32:13; Isa. 40:21; Isa. 40:28; Ezek. 17:12; Zech. 4:5; Zech. 4:13; Jn. 19:10; Rom. 6:3; Rom. 6:16; Rom. 7:1; Rom. 11:2; 1 Co. 3:16; 1 Co. 5:6; 1 Co. 6:2; 1 Co. 6:3; 1 Co. 6:9; 1 Co. 6:15; 1 Co. 6:16; 1 Co. 6:19; 1 Co. 9:13; 1 Co. 9:24; Jas. 4:4 That your bodies are members of Christ? - Paul's rhetorical question emphasizes that the Corinthians knew that their bodies were members of Christ even their (immoral) behavior belied their belief! You can know the truth but fail to act on it and that was the case with these fleshly saints who were acting like spiritual babies (cf 1 Cor 3:1-3+).This passage also now reinforces the principle that the body is for the Lord as he had stated in 1 Cor 6:13 The important truth is that our spirituality and our sexuality are mysteriously intertwined. Our bodies are members of Christ himself. These three verses describe the mystery of our union with Christ as a result of being in covenant oneness with Him. Jesus alluded to this oneness in Jn 15:4: "Abide in Me, and I in you." Paul described this union with Christ in Col 1:27+, as "Christ in you, the hope of glory." When we believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior (Ro 10:9-10+), we are joined in spirit with Jesus. He takes up residence in our mortal body, and whatever we do with our body implicates our resident Lord Jesus. You can see where Paul is going with this line of reasoning. The Corinthians were taking their bodies into the brothels and pagan temples (Aphrodite) and in so doing were taking the Lord Jesus Christ into these polluted places! Perish the thought! Plummer and
1 Coríntios 6:18
MacDonald - Most sins have no direct effect on one’s body, but sexual immorality is unique in the sense that it does directly affect one’s body: a person reaps the consequences of this sin in his own body. The difficulty is that the verse says that every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But we believe that the apostle is speaking here in a comparative sense. While it is true that gluttony and drunkenness, for example, affect a person’s body, most sins do not. And not even gluttony or drunkenness affect the body as directly, as extensively, or as destructively as immorality. Sex outside marriage inevitably and irresistibly works havoc on the offender. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson) The Pulpit Commentary - By alienating it from the service of him to whom it belongs; by incorporating it with the degradation of another; by staining the flesh and the body (Pr 5:8, 9, 10, 11; 6:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; 7:24, 25, 26, 27); by subtly poisoning the inmost sanctities of his own being. St. Paul is here thinking mainly, however, if not exclusively, of the moral injury and defilement. (Pulpit Commentary) UBS Handbook - Any other sin which a man commits remains in a certain sense external to him; but the man who gives himself to immorality fundamentally destroys himself. (The United Bible Societies' New Testament Handbook Series) Criswell - "Sexual immorality" has a peculiar effect upon the body. The sole purpose of this sin is the gratification of lust; and, therefore, it is probably the most selfish of all sins (cf. Matt. 5:32-note). The internal spiritual sensitivities are wrecked by this sin. (Criswell, W A. Believer's Study Bible: New King James Version. 1991. Thomas Nelson)
1 Coríntios 6:19
MacDonald comments: The Savior did not die for us so that we might go on living our own petty, selfish lives the way we want to live them. Rather He died for us so that we might henceforth turn over our lives to Him in willing, glad devotion. Denney explains "In dying our death, Christ has done for us something so immense in love, that we ought to be His, and only His for ever. To make us His is the very object of His death." A PEOPLE AS GOD'S POSSESSION - NOT A NEW TEACHING This concept of a group of people who are set apart (holy) and are the possession of the Holy God did not originate in the New Testament but has its roots in the Old Testament. For example, in the book of Exodus following His redemption of Israel (Ex 6:6, 15:13, Dt 7:8) from Egyptian bondage, Jehovah announced to them through Moses that… You yourselves (Israel as a nation) have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings (YouTube - On Eagle's Wings) and brought you to Myself (A beautiful metaphor which in essence describes God's redemption of Israel at the Passover, an event which foreshadowed and was fulfilled in the sacrifice [crucifixion] of the sinless Lamb of God [Jn 1:29] where Christ became every believer's Passover [1Co 5:7] so that we too would escape eternal death - see Passover Lamb). Now therefore, if (identifies this as a conditional statement - God will, if Israel will) you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant (Referring to the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant), you shall be My treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is Mine (Speaks of His sovereignty); and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Ex 19:5, 6, 7) Comment: Thus we see that in the Old Testament God declared that Israel would be His "treasured possession" (and a kingdom of priests and a holy nation), on the condition they obey His covenant stipulations. They did not obey and suffered the consequences of disruption of the nation and exile of the 10 northern tribes into Assyria (722BC) and then exile of the 2 southern tribes into Babylon (586BC). Today, under the unconditional New Covenant of grace (where obedience is still called for but is provided for by God Who gives us a new heart and new power to obey - Ezekiel 36:26, 27) all believers are now God's own treasured possession. It therefore behooves all of us who have been bought with such a costly price to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of our high calling as "God’s own purchased, special people" (as Wycliffe renders 1Pe 2:9) The tragedy is that the "Chosen People" rebelled against God's covenant (the Old Covenant of Law) and ran after other so called "gods", proving themselves to be an unfaithful "wife" (Read Ezekiel 6:9 to see what this did to God's heart!). If Israel's story had terminated there, it would have been a miserable end indeed. We would hardly be able to say "and they lived happily ever after"! But God (A great phrase "but God" - see Ro 5:8+, Ep 2:4+) was not (and is not) finished with Israel. The prophets help us understand God's promised plan for Israel, speaking of a time yet future when Israel will be wholly His possession, which is always what God has desired. In the context of Isaiah 43, God foretells of His redemption of Israel… But now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, and He who formed you, O Israel (God is clearly making this promise to the nation of Israel, not to the Church), “Do not fear, for I have redeemed (Ga'al/Goel - word study; Lxx = lutroo - word study = pay ransom payment to release someone held captive) you; I have called you by name; you are Mine! (Is 43:1) Comment: Motyer writes that "With marvelous dramatic sense we are moved from considering the people under the fire of the Lord (Is 42:25), and justly so, to the Lord promising that the fire will not burn them (Is 43:2)." Note that this prophecy was only partially fulfilled with Israel's return from Babylonian captivity (Ed: Think of the concept of redemption as paying a price to set the captives free, cp Lk 4:18), but awaits a final future fulfillment. John MacArthur agrees writing that "God’s redemption of His people from exile is not to be complete until His Servant returns to reign over the faithful remnant in the land of Israel who have believed on Jesus Christ (cp the events that will take place at the Second Coming = Zech 12:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Zech 13:1 = "that day" correlates with day described in Romans 11 = Ro 11:25, 26, 27+). The limited return from Babylon only typified the final return." (MacArthur, J.: The MacArthur Study Bible Nashville: Word) Isaiah goes on to describe the Lord's regathering of the believing Jewish remnant to the land of Israel (God is keeping His "forever" promise which He graciously gave to Abraham - Ge 13:15) ending their worldwide dispersion and He accomplishes this great deliverance at His Second Advent and just preceding the inauguration of His earthly reign as King of kings at the beginning of the Millennium). I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the ends of the earth, Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made." Comment: God gives multiple promises of national restoration in the Old Testament -- Isaiah 11:11,12, 27:13, 49:12, 60:4, Dt 30:3, 4, 5, 6, Jer 30:10, 11, to name a few. Constable makes the excellent observation that "Return from Babylonian captivity would not be from the four compass points and so does not qualify as the complete fulfillment. He will do this when Jesus Christ returns to the earth (cf. Is 5:26; Mt. 24:31)." (Isaiah)