Read the text carefully.
It has often be said that a brother may not take a brother to court under any circumstance based on our text for today. Is that true? Is that what Paul was seeking to teach in 1 Corinthians 6? Let’s consider this matter within the context.
The quibbles at Corinth were to the degree that brother took brother to court. From a study of this lengthy letter, we know that many Christians were yet infants in Christ (see 3:1), the body of Christ was divided (see 1:10-13), and selfishness and sin permeated the church. The first half of chapter 6 is yet another testament to the immaturity amongst the saints at Corinth.
While there are some difficulties in this passages that we will not be able to explore, there is enough clarity laying on the surface to suit our purposes. What we see is that Paul is making an argument from the greater unto the lesser. The saints will judge the world (v. 2). The saints will judge angels (v. 3). His argument is: If they have the ability to judge the world and angels, how can they not take care of trivial matters amongst themselves? (see v. 2). Paul suggests that surely they have a brother in the church who can help settle little personal disputes (v. 5).
Even beyond the relational problems in the church, was the fact that these problems were being flaunted before the world! This was truly a “defeat” (v. 7). Christians, and the Lord’s church, are to be a beacon of light, shining forth in a dark world (see Mt. 5:13-16). Instead, the church at Corinth was parading its problems before that world! Paul suggests that the Christian should rather be wronged than bring shame upon the church (see vv. 7-8).
Is Paul suggesting that it is always wrong to go to court against someone who is a brother in Christ? Before directly answering that question, please understand that my answer is not at all intended to be the ideal. We all know what the ideal is. The ideal is that these brothers work out their own problem (see 5:21-26), or at least have a wise brother to help them in this pursuit.
First consider that the admonition in this text is similar to the safeguard that Paul issues concerning the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. The Corinthians had made a divisive mockery of the Lord’s Supper. Some feasted, while others went hungry (see v. 21). Paul’s admonition is to just eat at home (see vv. 22, 33-34). In the context Paul is not arguing against eating together as Christians, but he was arguing against the divisiveness amongst the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is not making an argument that it is always wrong to take a brother to court, but once again, he is arguing against a very divisive spirit which is the theme of this correspondence (see 1 Cor. 1:10).
Further, though it would be a last resort, and never the desire of the child of God, there may be the occasion where justice demands a Christian bring a brother to court. Paul, in what he taught in our text, was not seeking to provide “sanctuary” for the rebellious child of God. If Christians are subject to the governing authorities, and they are (see Rom. 13:1-7), then it would not make sense for Christianity to provide “refuge” for lawbreakers. Neither should it be supposed that going to court with someone is necessarily an “unloving” thing to do. On rare occasions, it may be the right thing to do for the sake of justice.
In fact, if one were to suggest that under no condition can a Christian go to court against a Christian, he actually may find himself opposing an allowance Jesus made. In Matthew 19 Jesus teaches that in the case of a Christian’s spouse being sexually immoral, the faithful spouse has the right to divorce for that cause and remarry another (see v. 19). Of course, this would necessitate going to court.
One of the final admonitions of Paul in this letter is found in 16:14 where he says, “Let all that you do be done in love.” If all of us would commit ourselves to living by that, most church problems would so quickly fall by the wayside!
Daren Schroeder
