MetaCatholic

There is a near consensus among modern translations about the way to render the problematic verse 1 Corinthians 6:4. I list several typical translations embracing the theological spectrum:

βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τούτους καθίζετε;
If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? (NRSV)
So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge? (HCSB)
So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? (ESV)
If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? (NAB)

Among the few that translate differently are these (interestingly NKJV and TNIV agree with the majority):

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.(KJV)
Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! (NIV)

In the majority view the final verb is an indicative, and the whole should be read as a question about accepting as judges pagans outside the community. In the minority view the final verb is an imperative, and the statement is Paul ironically ordering them to appoint even the lowliest member of the community, if they can’t settle their disputes. Either interpretation shares the same context of the church sharing the judgement of the world, including angels (vv2-3).

One linguistic argument deployed in favour of the majority view is “the nearly insuperable difficulties of having an imperative appear as the final word in a sentence” (Fee’s commentary ad loc). Others have not found this so difficult, and against these “nearly insuperable difficulties” must be set the fact that Chrysostom as a native Greek speaker had no such difficulty construing it as an imperative (Homily 16 on 1 Cor).

Arguably the main reason for taking it as a statement about using judges who are not even members of the church is one of those “But Paul wouldn’t say that” arguments. Paul surely wouldn’t refer to any members of the church as “those disdained in the church – τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ”, would he? I am not so certain.

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.  But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;  God chose what is low and despised – τὰ ἐξουθενημένα –in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are. (1 Corinthians 1:26-28 NRSV)

If, as many suspect, Paul’s primary interlocutors at Corinth are the few who were wise and powerful, then perhaps the imperative does indeed have a certain point, to recall those whom God has also chosen to belong to the community who will judge the world. So Paul actually continues “I say this to your shame.” (1 Cor 6:5). The lawcourt was an arena in which people, particularly wealthy and powerful people, competed for honour. One of the main ways of achieving victory was eloquence: the display of well chosen rhetoric. I note how easily Paul links rhetoric and wisdom:

My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom , but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor 2:4 NRSV)

Paul seeks to portray going to law, not as a matter of honour but of shame, a resort to persuasive words of wisdom, instead of a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, which is available even to the least esteemed in the church.

 In short, the minority view among the translations, if it is read in the context of a culture of honour and shame, as the first-century Mediterranean was, has a great deal going for it. If this verse means, in effect, “even those you despise on account of their standing have sufficient competence in God’s eyes to judge the world: if you feel yourselves incompetent for these matters, appoint them”, then it adds force to Paul’s argument. He knows they will be unable to do this, and hopes therefore that they will settle the matter for themselves, actually assuming the leadership they claim, in a way which places the honour of the community ahead of their own personal honour.