‘If then you have to judge things pertaining to this life, set those to judge who are of no account in the church (or ‘do you set to judge those---'). I say this to move you to shame. Is it so that there cannot be found among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brothers, but brother goes to law against brother and that before unbelievers?'
In Judaism the synagogues were given various powers of judging and making decisions and to a limited extent these were accepted by the law. Thus Paul is aligning Christian churches with the synagogue, and as the outside world still saw Christians as a type of Jew, their judgments too might have been found acceptable by the law. But Paul's case goes far beyond this.
‘Set those to judge who are of no account in the church.' This may be Paul's way of saying ironically that in their case those whom they least value are probably those who would give the fairest judgment because the more prominent themselves behave in such a way as to exalt the wrong people.
Alternately, ‘Do you set to judge those who are of no account in the church?' The question then is asking whether they really think that the church should use as judges ‘those of no account' from God's point of view. Surely they should look to those respected and chosen by God. It is seeking to give them assurance that they can rather trust their church leaders to do the right thing.
A third possibility is that ‘those -- of no account' refers to pagan judges, that is, of no account when it comes to decisions between Christians, of no account under the Kingly Rule of God. The use of these judges by a Christian would then suggest that they did not think that there was even one person in the church fit enough to judge.
Whichever is true Paul is bringing home the fact that their behaviours shows that they have a poor view of their own church. It would seem that the Corinthian church had this as a special problem because they had so many well-to-do church members and businessmen who were constantly in dispute with each other. And by their actions they were bringing Christianity into disrepute.
‘If then you have to judge things pertaining to this life.' There seems to be a hint here in the ‘if' that in most cases it should not be necessary to do this in the courts if they are living as true Christian brothers. Would brothers in a family behave in such a way?
‘One wise man who will be able to decide between his brothers.' There may, however, be a dispute between brothers, although it should not be. Then surely it is better to go to a member of the ‘family' to decide the case. Can they really doubt that, with so much wisdom of words among them, there is someone wise enough to do it?
‘Brother goes to law against brother.' This is even worse. They cannot settle their dispute reasonably. ‘Before unbelievers'. The greatest shame of all. They are accounting unbelievers as better able to achieve what is right than Christians, and humiliating their Christian brother publicly, and at the same time making clear to the world how badly Christians can behave. Note the downward progression.
‘Is it so that there cannot be found among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brothers, but brother goes to law against brother and that before unbelievers?'
The Greek is difficult to us. This might mean, ‘you appoint unsuitable Christians, is it in order that you can demonstrate the church's unfitness to judge?' Or it may mean, ‘You appoint pagan judges. Is this in order that no one will arise who is wise enough in the church circle to act as judge?' Either way it is condemned. They should be striving with all their might to ensure that the church is able to judge such matters. For otherwise brother goes to law against brother before unbelievers, those who by their unbelief have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to decide rightly about sin, and that is a shameful thing.