1 Corinthians 6:1-8 Does any one of you, when he has a [a]case against another, dare to be tried before the unrighteous and not before the [b]saints? 2 Or do you not know that the [c]saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not worthy to [d]constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint those who are of no account in the church as judges? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it really this way: there is not one wise man among you who will be able to pass judgment between his brothers? 6 On the contrary, brother is tried with brother, and that before unbelievers!
7 Actually, then, it is already a failure for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brothers.
Well, we started the Epistle of First Corinthians last week, and I told you that the church in Corinth had a lot of problems. And so, because they had so many problems, and some of them were so public, known by the community that I gave this letter the title; Jesus is Your Lord; Now Act like it! They were a church that struggled with obedience. The word “Lord,” kurion, is found 57 times In the letter, More than any other epistle, and this to remind them that Jesus is their Lord not just their savior. The way they behave should be affected by their faith. But there were many ways that it was not . There were factions in the church . Some people saying I am appalled or I am of a polis. There was sexual immorality , incest, in the church. And the assembly was not addressing it . Later in the book we will discover there were marriage issues that were not being addressed. There was pride in the membership. Worship services had gone amuck. But, the worst part of their disobedience was that it was Much of it was public. The community around them witnessed it.
Most of us have heard the warning, “Don’t air your dirty laundry in public.”
It is an old and vivid expression. Our American wording, “air your dirty laundry,” grew out of an older English warning: “Do not wash your dirty linen in public.” And that English expression is closely related to an older French proverb: “eel foh lah-VAY sohn LANZH sahl ahn fah-MEE-yuh.”
Literally, it means, “One must wash one’s dirty linen within the family.” Before there were washers and dryers hidden away in utility rooms, clothing was washed by hand and hung out in the open air. Dirty garments were not something you displayed for the neighborhood to inspect. So “dirty laundry” came to mean the embarrassing sins, conflicts, failures, and secrets of a family.
In other words, family conflicts ought not be paraded before outsiders. You didn’t take the negatives about your family and broadcast them to the neighborhood. If you can solve your problems in the family, you did so.
Now, when we say, “Don’t air your dirty laundry,” we often mean, “Keep the family’s problems hidden. Don’t let anyone see the mess.” But that is not exactly what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 6.
Paul is not telling the Corinthians to pretend there is no dirty laundry. In fact, he exposes it. He says, “Brother is tried with brother, and that before unbelievers!” Then he goes even deeper: “You yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brothers.” Notice what he considers the problem.
The problem is not that the Corinthians have conflict. The problem is that they are handling their conflict as though they do not belong to Christ, as though they are not brothers and sisters, as though the wisdom of God Is not found in the church. This is about as practical as you can get. Don't sue your brothers and sisters in Christ.
So as we come to 1 Corinthians 6:1–8, Paul is not teaching us how to hide dirty laundry. He is teaching us how the family of God must deal with sin, conflict, rights, wrongs, and reconciliation in a way that honors the name of Jesus Christ.
Prayer
1 Corinthians 6:1–8 — “Lawsuits Among Believers”
We are going to outline our study this morning around 4 points.
The scandal, the irony, the command, the sin
So what was the problem here? There were a couple things. It was a public shame. And second it discounted the wisdom of God.
So, what is this about? Lawsuits Against Another Christian. Some of the Corinthian believers were suing other Christians in the public civil court. Now we know that lawsuits come out of disagreements. Property contracts unfulfilled, the sale of an ox. Somebody made a deal with another Christian in the church and one or the other believed the agreement was not met. Somebody didn’t pay, somebody divided the property incorrectly. Somebody didn't disclose the condition of an animal.
The disputes Paul has in mind were likely the ordinary civil conflicts that arise whenever people live, work, and trade together: an unpaid debt, a broken agreement, a disputed business partnership, damage to property or goods, a disagreement over wages, rent, or an inheritance. In a commercial city like Corinth, believers may have argued over money lent to a brother, merchandise delivered but not paid for, or promises made in a shared venture. These matters could be real and painful; Paul is not saying that injustice does not matter. But he asks the church to see something greater than the disputed amount. If Christ has made these people brothers and sisters, why should their first instinct be to defeat one another publicly rather than to seek truth, wise counsel, restitution, forgiveness, and peace within the family of God? Paul’s piercing question is not merely, “Who is right?” but, “What does this conflict say about the Christ we claim has reconciled us?”
Now We understand that this kind of stuff happens all the time in our country And around the world. So what is the issue? What’s the scandal? Well, to understand that you need to know a little about the history of the Greeks, and the Jews. First the Jews; Paul was a Jew, and steeped in the knowledge and adherence to Jewish law. Now what would happen in Jewish society, no matter where they lived, if one Jew felt another Jew did him wrong in a civil matter, they did not take them to court. In fact they were taught not to do so By their own rabbis.
A strong early Jewish source is Rabbi Tarfon (late first–early second century AD), preserved in the Babylonian Talmud:
“With regard to any place where you find gentile courts, even if their laws are like Jewish laws, you may not attend them.… One may go to court only before them, i.e., Jewish judges, and not before gentiles.”
—Rabbi Tarfon, Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 88b
Don't take your Jewish brother to a Gentile court.
The basis for this was that the Jewish people were commanded by God to live under a different set of commands and ordinances than those of the Gentile world. They were to have their own judges and their own standard of right and wrong.
So, the synagogue was the place. The city gate was the place you were to Settle disagreements. Now compare this to how things were settled in the Greek world. In the Greek World. Public Gentile Court was a big thing. It was almost a form of entertainment.
When Paul rebukes the Corinthians for taking one another to public court, he is not describing a quiet disagreement settled discreetly behind closed doors. In the Greek world, court proceedings were public affairs: large groups of citizens could sit in judgment, sometimes hundreds, crowds could gather to watch, and a lawsuit became a stage on which people defended their honor, attacked an opponent, and tried to win public approval. It could be before a single judge , or it could be a jury, and even a large jury. Corinth itself was a Roman colony, yet it shared this wider Greco-Roman culture of public litigation and public reputation.
In first-century Corinth, a civil dispute would often begin with an unpaid debt, property disagreement, business conflict, or claim of fraud, followed by informal demands for repayment or correction. If the matter was not resolved, the plaintiff would summon the defendant to answer the charge before a civic official, often in the public forum near the bēma, or judgment seat. Each side would state its claim and defense, and the magistrate would decide whether the case belonged in that venue and how it should proceed. A judge or arbitrator could then hear witnesses, examine written agreements or receipts, receive oaths, and listen to arguments from the parties or their representatives. If the plaintiff won, the defendant could be required to pay money, surrender property, or satisfy another legal obligation. Because the process was public and could affect a person’s honor, reputation, and standing in the community, such lawsuits often carried consequences beyond the financial dispute itself.
So, when two Christians carried their quarrel before an unbelieving civic tribunal, they were putting the family’s conflict on display before the world. Instead of showing that Christ had made them one body, they advertised division, self-interest, and the same hunger to win that marked the surrounding culture. No wonder Paul calls it a defeat: the church meant to display the wisdom and reconciling power of Christ was allowing its disputes to become a public embarrassment.
So, some believers in the Corinthian Church had a disagreement over civil matters with other believers, and dragged the matter into the spectacle of the public court system. That was the first problem. We're creating a scandal in the community., we've already seen how a scandal was created in the community because a man was having an incestuous relationship with his stepmother. And that was scandalous even among the Greeks and Romans. Now they are providing fodder for gossip about the church, by taking civil matters to court. They were taking the matters, “ Before the unrighteous.”
Second, it discounted the wisdom of God. You are taking your matters before the unrighteous. What did he mean by that?
Now let me make note of a couple things here. First, any court system In any city, state, or country Is built on the society in which it is founded. So, when he says that you shouldn't take a civil matter before the unrighteous in the courts he was writing what would become a universal principle across multiple societies and systems. For example I might be relatively comfortable taking a matter to court in the United States. I might believe that I can get some semblance of fairness and justice in our court system. But if I were living in Iraq or Saudi Arabia today I probably would not say the same. And even within the United States , one judge may be impartial and another on the take. There are court systems around the world that have an opposite principle to our court system.
For example, One of the founding principles of our court system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. The same is not true in systems around the world. In some societies , bribery is woven into the system. And so appearing before the unrighteous means appearing before people who are not following a righteous standard. But there's a second thing for us to consider. “ Before the unrighteous” .And that is that even when a judicial system is fair and impartial as it can be, founded and maybe even based on God's laws from the Bible; America's system has many principles built around the Bible. if its judges, juries, and magistrates are not believers, they are unregenerate and they are the unrighteous. Consider this: A Christian has God's spirit living in him or her. A non-christian does not. A Christian knows God's law and his grace. A non-christian does not.
The scandal is that they are airing dirty laundry.
Does any one of you, when he has a [a]case against another, dare to be tried before the unrighteous and not before the [b]saints?
The irony
2 Or do you not know that the [c]saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not worthy to [d]constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
There are several points to make here about what they were doing. They were seeking justice. They were seeking fairness. To set things right. Paul's point is the irony of going to the unrighteous, the unredeemed, seeking righteousness. Shouldn't you rather go to the righteous? So, then he points out several ironic things here About going to secular court. First, “ Or do you not know that the Saints will judge the world “ Believers will one day “judge the world.” You are going to a secular judge when you are worshiping among people who will “ Judge the world.”
So what is he referring to here? He is referring to the fact that believers will be judges in the world during the Millennial Kingdom. Denise and I have had multiple conversations about this. In the Millennial Kingdom, Christians, raptured and transformed into their new bodies, will rule with Christ. Listen to these scriptures
So that gives us a picture of the twelve apostles ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel. So who will judge the remainder of the world well Gentile Christians will rule the rest of the world. There will be physically transformed Christians in the Millennium, and also a population of people who are still being born living and dying during the 1000 year reign of Christ.
We will reign/rule With Christ. Is repeatedly stated in scripture.
What does that mean practically? It means that Christ is king of kings sitting on a throne in Jerusalem. But he rules the world by implementing offices under him. We know what that is. In some countries thet have a King. But even a king doesn't rule personally. He appoints a cabinet. Alongside of him is often the legislature. Then there can also be state legislatures, governors, judges, police officers, dog catchers.
There will be all kinds of offices to fill. Now I know that it won't look exactly like anything we've seen before. But the point is that we will be judges. Paul's point is that if we will be judges beside Christ in the Millennial Kingdom, are we not qualified to judge between ourselves in this world? But what else did Paul say that points out the irony. Believers will also “ Do you not know that believers will judge angels.”
Taking your Christian disagreements before the unrighteous when you have fellow Christians among you who will judge Angels.
What are we talking about here? Well, there are a couple of ways of interpreting this. There are good and bad angels right? Who needs to be judged? Well our first answer would be , bad angels. So, we kind of understand that bad angels need to be judged.
So, These verses say that demons, fallen angels, face a future judgment. this passage may be saying that we will somehow be a part of that future judgment process. We are not told how. But there are other commentators that think that this refers to judging good angels. What could that mean? What would I judge a good angel for? I mean, my guardian angel didn't keep me from getting food poisoning? I fell off a ladder. He was slacking on his Protection duty., that is not what it is referring to. And the interpretation here depends on this word for judge. Do you not know that we will judge angels?
The word for judge here has to do with “making decisions.” Yes, it can be judicial decisions. But it can be simply deciding a course of action. It is used to describe those who rule. They are deciding of course of action . So in this sense christians will be those who decide a course of action for the good angels.
When would this happen ? We know that We will be in greater authority than Angels In the Millennial Kingdom. Hebrews chapter 2 verse 5 says that God did not subject the world to come to angels but to but to Believers. Hebrews chapter 1 verse 14 says of Angels that they are ministering spirits. They are created to serve.
and so I can only imagine this but during the Millennial Kingdom angels who are called ministers will continue being ministers and if we are ruling with Christ then we could be directing them. That's an exciting thought. But the bigger point is that if we are going to judge the world if we are going to judge and rule angels in the millennium then should we not be competent enough to settle small disputes here in this world.
The command
Paul uses a little sarcasm here
4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, appoint those who are of no account to judge in the church. 5 I say this to your shame. Is it really this way: there is not one wise man among you who will be able to pass judgment between his brothers? 6 On the contrary, brother is tried with brother, and that before unbelievers!
Let's look at one phrase at a time. Verse 4 He is saying that since all of what we just said is true. Any Saint has more spiritual wisdom and faculty than any non-saint. Then you ought to take the person in your assembly who is the least respected, and make them a judge over members' civil matters. Take the person you consider least intelligent and make them your arbitrator of disagreements. What is his point? His point is that that would be better than going before civil courts. Now I said he is speaking sarcastically. How do I know, because of what he says next in verse 5.
I say this to your shame. He is saying you guys ought to be ashamed. Isn't there one person in your church wise enough to determine right judgment. This is an ironic statement because there were people at the church in Corinth who thought they were very wise.
But now he has to say “is there not anyone among you who is wise Enough to arbitrate? In verse 6 he says instead of finding someone who has some wisdom in your own congregation you are dragging these matters before public courts. And by doing so you are testifying that in your church there is no love, no forgiveness, no patience, no wisdom, and no intelligence.
The public spectacle of “brother… tried with brother” before unbelievers brings shame upon the church. So, what is the command? Don't sue a Christian brother or sister. Very simple. Right? And the same standard applies to day. Wait a minute? What am I supposed to do if I get cheated by a fellow Christian? They sell me their car and don't disclose that the transmission is shot. First, you should have taken it to a mechanic. I was considering buying a car from an older female member here at Parkview years ago . She didn't know anything about cars. I thought the price she was asking was too high. But as a matter of normal operating procedure I pay the mechanic to look at the car. There were lots of problems with it. And it wasn't that she was trying to cheat me. She just didn't know . I gave her the mechanics evaluation on paper. I said no thanks to the car and advised her that she might consider lowering the price. But, you may say, what if the sale had gone forward and then you feel cheated . Will you follow the basic process described in the book of Matthew for church discipline. Go to that person yourself. If they wont listen or make things right take one or two more with you. Consider them to be people that you think are wise and are good at arbitration. If they won't listen to them then you have to consider whether what has happened here is just a disagreement or whether there was actually sin involved. If there was sin involved then you can go on to take it to the church
It may be possible in some church settings or even in our society to find Christian arbitration. Ultimately, if it doesn't go your way, let it go. Don't take them to small claims before unbelievers. Well what if they won't cooperate? We're gonna get there in a minute.
The point is to the best of your ability you are to solve those problems outside of court. Look at verse 7
7 Actually, then, it is already a failure for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
It is better for the church and the cause of Christ that you lose money rather than a case go before a secular judge
Let me give you some caveats.
Christian love and the unity of Christ’s body should matter more than insisting on personal rights in ordinary disputes. Now let me stop step back for a little bit. With any scripture passage I believe we always start with the principle.
First caveat. What is the principle? The principle is that you should avoid anything that sullies the name of the church and by extension Christ. that being said, is it possible to go to court and not sully the reputation of the church or Christ? But I think there are some settings where Christians can reasonably go to some court system and not bring disgrace to the name of Christ.
I would try to avoid all lawsuits personally. With arbitration and if you are reasonable, not demanding incredible sums. Second caveat;I also realized that other often lawsuits aren't against individuals but corporations who automatically deny claims or act unfairly. What about people who just say they are Christian? Mechanic has a fish on his sign christian Brothers' Automotive. But the principal remains take care of disputes between Christians in the confines of the church. Really you should try to do that with all disputes.
Third caveat ;Let me add something else when I say this I am not referring to offenses that should automatically be reported to the authorities or taken to court. If there is abuse or other things involved in relationships it is not the place of the church to try and cover up what is taking place between members of the church.
At the same time, this passage must never be used to conceal criminal conduct, abuse, threats, exploitation, or danger to children or vulnerable people. The church should report crimes to the proper civil authorities, cooperate with lawful investigations, protect victims, and exercise biblical church discipline. Civil government is God’s servant for justice (Romans 13:1–4). First Corinthians 6 addresses ordinary disputes between professing believers; it does not authorize churches to cover up evil or pressure victims into silence.
But what were the Corinthians doing?
The sin. This wasn't just a disagreement between Corinthian believers in some cases.
8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brothers.
Paul turns the accusation back on them. This wasn't just about believers being cheated and going to court. It was about some of them cheating others. Some are themselves doing the wronging and defrauding. And they are taking it to public court because they are not interested in reconciliation, forgiveness, or fairness. They are interested in money . Interested in winning. Their sin is intensified because they are doing it “to your brothers.” And that is absolutely contrary to Christian principles.
How can we apply this principle to other circumstances? Many of you may say, “ I've never sued anyone. I've never considered it. Especially not a fellow Christian.
The principle of 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 reaches beyond lawsuits: Christians should not rush to expose, weaponize, or escalate ordinary disputes among believers before making a sincere effort to pursue truth, repentance, reconciliation, and wise mediation within the church. Paul is not saying that every problem must be hidden; he is confronting selfish, public conflict between brothers who would rather win than love one another.
It can apply in several settings:
A concise sermon principle might be: “When Christians have ordinary conflicts, our first question should not be, ‘How can I win?’ but, ‘How can truth, righteousness, love, and the name of Christ be honored?’”