KJV 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 Comparison

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro TM.

The KJV is an awesome and majestic translation.
Sometimes I'm not sure I understand it and find comparing translations helps me.

Likewise.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

1Corinthians 6:1-6 KJV

I find the passage below interesting. I was focused on verse 4 in a discussion during a mixed denomination Bible study this morning. One of the men mentioned that his version of the Bible did not mention the “least esteemed” phrase. We compared our various versions of the Bible and three (including my King James Version) seemed to be in agreement as to the interpretation. One seemed to say just the opposite. I ran it through Bible hub and was surprised to discover that several seemed to conflict with the KJV as to its meaning. They typically posed a question instead of making a statement as is done in the KJV. Which in itself is a type of opposite. I have read commentary, which seems to be conflicting as well. So I thought I would throw it into the AFF thresher and see what the consensus is. Both to the fact of different versions seeming to have opposing interpretations, and the interesting literal meaning of the KJV being a practice that is not necessarily followed in our modern church models.

The KJV is my favorite version of the Bible. Having said that, I’m not really a KJV only type of person. But this has happened before where the KJV and other versions seem to conflict to the point of being pretty much opposite in meaning.

What do yall think?


1Cor.6

[1] Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
[2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
[4] If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
[5] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
[6] But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 KJV
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? [2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? [3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

The entire issue is that Paul is rebuking them for suing each other in secular courts and NOT bringing the issues up to the congregation. This is wrong because the church will judge the world, and indeed angels. Therefore the church ought to be trusted with these relatively lesser judgments between saints.

1 Corinthians 6:4-11 KJV
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. [5] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? [6] But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. [7] Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? [8] Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. [9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So Paul instructs them to refer such matters to the church or else the suing party should let it go and forget about it. If they were going to pursue the issue, they were to prefer common fellow Christians to secular judges.

Gill says this:

"to set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church; meaning, not those of the lowest circumstances of life, and of the meanest abilities and capacities; for in the next verse he requires a wise man for such a business; but private persons, laymen, who were not in any office and authority in the church, in distinction from pastors, elders, and rulers, that were in office, power, and high esteem, whom he would not have troubled with cases of this nature; but should rather choose out from among the laity persons of the best judgment and capacity, to be umpires and arbitrators in such worldly matters, which do not so properly come under the notice and cognizance of spiritual guides. The phrase, "to judge", is not in the original text, where it is only "set", or "put in the chair"; but is added in the Vulgate Latin version; and to which agree both the Syriac and Arabic versions; the former reading the words, "they that are despised in the church, set for you in judgment"; and the latter, "make them to sit judges". The Jews, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, besides their great sanhedrim of seventy one persons, and that other of twenty three in their cities of note, and their triumvirate in every synagogue, had also two sorts of benches, who judged of lesser matters; the one was called , "the bench of authorized persons", experienced men, that were approved of, and had their authority from the sanhedrim; and the other was called , "the bench of idiots" (d), or private persons, or , "the bench of those who were not authorized" (e), or had not their authority, from the higher courts; but being judged proper persons, were chosen by the people to arbitrate matters in difference between them; and these are the men the apostle means, at least alludes to, before whom he would have the causes brought."

Barnes however recognizes the possibility of interpreting v4 as a question:

"Set them to judge ... - The verb translated set καθίζετε kathizete may be either in the imperative mood, as in our translation, and then it will imply a command; or it may be regarded as in the indicative, and to be rendered interrogatively, "Do ye set or appoint them to judge who are of little repute for their wisdom and equity?" that is, pagan magistrates. "

And, he concludes in favour of treating it as a question. I think he is wrong, as Paul has already established they were already doing that and was moving on to the correction. Lightfoot's observation about Judean religious court practice is highly instructive as to Paul's meaning and choice of words, considering the early church's organization and operation was a more properly developed form (reformation) of 1st century synagogue practices.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Both to the fact of different versions seeming to have opposing interpretations, and the interesting literal meaning of the KJV being a practice that is not necessarily followed in our modern church models.

That is because "our modern church models" are examples of apostasy.

[coksiw]

The concept of laity vs clergy is not at play. This is 1st century church, not the structured church of Gill.

The elders are supposed to be the judges, not the "least esteemed". That is what Old Testament Law of Moses instructs, and what Paul did in the churches.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The concept of laity vs clergy is not at play. This is 1st century church, not the structured church of Gill.

The elders are supposed to be the judges, not the "least esteemed". That is what Old Testament Law of Moses instructs, and what Paul did in the churches.

Gill is pointing out the distinctions in responsibilies between elders and others. We see this also in the appointment of the first deacons as food distributors. Lightfoot's observations (which Gill references) are more to the point, though.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Gill is pointing out the distinctions in responsibilies between elders and others. We see this also in the appointment of the first deacons as food distributors. Lightfoot's observations (which Gill references) are more to the point, though.

Also the phrase "least esteemed" may be an example of Paul's use of mild sarcasm. "Since the church shall judge the world even the local Christian dingbat ought to be capable of judging these insignificant issues."

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 KJV
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? [2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? [3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

The entire issue is that Paul is rebuking them for suing each other in secular courts and NOT bringing the issues up to the congregation. This is wrong because the church will judge the world, and indeed angels. Therefore the church ought to be trusted with these relatively lesser judgments between saints.

1 Corinthians 6:4-11 KJV
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. [5] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? [6] But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. [7] Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? [8] Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. [9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So Paul instructs them to refer such matters to the church or else the suing party should let it go and forget about it. If they were going to pursue the issue, they were to prefer common fellow Christians to secular judges.

Gill says this:

"to set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church; meaning, not those of the lowest circumstances of life, and of the meanest abilities and capacities; for in the next verse he requires a wise man for such a business; but private persons, laymen, who were not in any office and authority in the church, in distinction from pastors, elders, and rulers, that were in office, power, and high esteem, whom he would not have troubled with cases of this nature; but should rather choose out from among the laity persons of the best judgment and capacity, to be umpires and arbitrators in such worldly matters, which do not so properly come under the notice and cognizance of spiritual guides. The phrase, "to judge", is not in the original text, where it is only "set", or "put in the chair"; but is added in the Vulgate Latin version; and to which agree both the Syriac and Arabic versions; the former reading the words, "they that are despised in the church, set for you in judgment"; and the latter, "make them to sit judges". The Jews, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, besides their great sanhedrim of seventy one persons, and that other of twenty three in their cities of note, and their triumvirate in every synagogue, had also two sorts of benches, who judged of lesser matters; the one was called , "the bench of authorized persons", experienced men, that were approved of, and had their authority from the sanhedrim; and the other was called , "the bench of idiots" (d), or private persons, or , "the bench of those who were not authorized" (e), or had not their authority, from the higher courts; but being judged proper persons, were chosen by the people to arbitrate matters in difference between them; and these are the men the apostle means, at least alludes to, before whom he would have the causes brought."

Barnes however recognizes the possibility of interpreting v4 as a question:

"Set them to judge ... - The verb translated set καθίζετε kathizete may be either in the imperative mood, as in our translation, and then it will imply a command; or it may be regarded as in the indicative, and to be rendered interrogatively, "Do ye set or appoint them to judge who are of little repute for their wisdom and equity?" that is, pagan magistrates. "

And, he concludes in favour of treating it as a question. I think he is wrong, as Paul has already established they were already doing that and was moving on to the correction. Lightfoot's observation about Judean religious court practice is highly instructive as to Paul's meaning and choice of words, considering the early church's organization and operation was a more properly developed form (reformation) of 1st century synagogue practices.

Originally Posted by Esaias

That is because "our modern church models" are examples of apostasy.

Thank you brother. This is, to me what the KJV literally means. I have always understood it in this way. I believe this is the true answer.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The concept of laity vs clergy is not at play. This is 1st century church, not the structured church of Gill.

The elders are supposed to be the judges, not the "least esteemed". That is what Old Testament Law of Moses instructs, and what Paul did in the churches.

Hello Brother Coksiw,

I think you are correct to say that laity versus clergy was not in play at this point, possibly. However, it would not be long before the spirit of the Nicholaitan invaded the church. God hated that spirit and James spoke of seats of honor for someone who had nice clothes and a ring, which he said was sinful. So the concept of big I’s and little you’s was an issue. It seems likely to me that it wasn’t even sarcasm but was instead solid teaching. It’s human nature to have an hierarchy. Jesus said it was not to be so in His kingdom. Esaias’ post pointed out that it is possible to be wise, and not be highly esteemed. Or to be even be “least esteemed”. So I believe that is the plausible answer.

It doesn’t negate the fact that there are two widely differing viewpoints in regards to this passage to the point of being nearly opposing views. Which logic would lead to one of necessity being wrong.

So in y’all’s highly esteemed opinions, which is wrong?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Hello Brother Coksiw,

I think you are correct to say that laity versus clergy was not in play at this point, possibly. However, it would not be long before the spirit of the Nicholaitan invaded the church. God hated that spirit and James spoke of seats of honor for someone who had nice clothes and a ring, which he said was sinful. So the concept of big I’s and little you’s was an issue. It seems likely to me that it wasn’t even sarcasm but was instead solid teaching. It’s human nature to have an hierarchy. Jesus said it was not to be so in His kingdom. Esaias’ post pointed out that it is possible to be wise, and not be highly esteemed. Or to be even be “least esteemed”. So I believe that is the plausible answer.

It doesn’t negate the fact that there are two widely differing viewpoints in regards to this passage to the point of being nearly opposing views. Which logic would lead to one of necessity being wrong.

So in y’all’s highly esteemed opinions, which is wrong?

Barnes is wrong, Gill and Lightfoot and me and you are right.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Also the phrase "least esteemed" may be an example of Paul's use of mild sarcasm. "Since the church shall judge the world even the local Christian dingbat ought to be capable of judging these insignificant issues."

"And to some He gave Dingbats..."


That's me...I'm the Dingbat. Previously unknown 6th ministerial office.