Legal Unemployment
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
One of the most neglected aspects of our
Lord’s commandments come in the matter of seeking our rights in
court.
(1 Cor 6:1-8 NIV) If any of you has a dispute
with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment
instead of before the saints? {2} Do you not know that the
saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world,
are you not competent to judge trivial cases? {3} Do you not
know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this
life! {4} Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters,
appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! {5}
I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody
among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? {6}
But instead, one brother goes to law against another--and this
in front of unbelievers! {7} The very fact that you have
lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated
already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
{8} Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this
to your brothers.
Review
We must begin by recalling where Paul has
been taking them.
·
We are not given the task of
judging the world. That’s the function of the Holy
Spirit. As we shall see in this lesson, we have a role
to play in that, but not in this present age.
·
Paul now turns to disputes
between Christian brothers. It is a different question,
but the principles – especially the honor and unity of
the church – are the same.
Definitions
If we are to understand this passage
correctly, we must understand some of the Greek words used;
otherwise we may reach the wrong conclusions.
·
The word used for “dispute”
in verse 1 is the Greek pragma – from which we
get our word “pragmatic.” It means a dispute about
ordinary matters – not something stemming from a sin,
but (for example) a commercial dispute.
·
The word used for “judge” in
this passage is the Greek krino, which carries
the meaning of a formal courtroom judgment. So we can
see that Paul is talking about the legal system of his
time.
·
The phrase “ungodly” is
actually the unrighteous or unjust. It does not mean so
much those without God as those without a real sense of
justice and righteousness. It is both a description and
a comment on the corruption of the time.
·
Interestingly, the word
translated “disputes” in verse four is different from
the word in verse 1 – it is kriterion, from which
we get our word “criterion.” The subtle meaning is that
we are to apply criteria, or standards, to such
disputes. So it is that Chrysostom tells us that the
world will be judged “in us” – not by us. As the men of
Nineveh will rise to condemn those of Christ’s
generation by their repentance, so our example is to set
a criterion for the judgment of the world.
Sense of outrage
Paul uses the word “dare” – to express his
outrage that any Christian would do such a thing. Why the
outrage?
·
First, because of the
authority of the church. The world has no authority over
the church, except as God permits. Do recall that all
authority in heaven and on earth is given to Christ, and
by that authority he has established the church. To
permit the courts to settle such disputes denies that
authority, and thus denies the Lord who gave it.
·
Next – as even the ungodly
would acknowledge – a judge must come to his task with
clean hands. If his decisions are to be respected, then
he must be seen as one who is impartial. If his
decisions are to be honored, and not put into action by
force, he must be seen as one who is worthy of that
honor. You may be forced to obey the decisions of the
unrighteous, but you cannot be forced to honor them. Who
then should judge these matters for Christians?
·
Such actions attack the
unity of the church, and this (as Paul has been
proclaiming) is a most serious matter. After all, this
letter begins by attacking the factions in the church;
this is more of that same message. The unity of the
church is in God’s stated will – Christ thought it so
important that he prayed for it on the night of his
crucifixion – and it is the Apostle’s care.
These are not trivial matters. To have them
trivially cast aside for the sake of money or anger is indeed
outrageous.
Should a Christian “go to law” at all?
There is a greater matter to be considered
here: should a Christian go to law at all? I’m speaking of
matters between a Christian and a non-Christian. Do you not
recall our Lord’s words?
(Mat 5:39-41 NIV) But I tell you, Do not
resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also. {40} And if someone wants to
sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
{41} If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two
miles.
Will you consider the implications of going
to court?
·
It implies that we are more
concerned with our money, our lifestyle or our pride
than we are about another man’s soul. For what dispute
in court could possibly be worth a man’s soul? If you
abandon your case and win a brother, are you not greatly
enriched?
·
It implies that we place
“our rights” first – we, who are sinners. By proclaiming
Christ we admit we are sinners, those who have offended.
With our dirty hands we sign the court documents seeking
to grub money from others.
·
We do this in defiance of
our Lord’s command. Command?
(Mat 5:25-26 NIV) "Settle matters quickly
with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you
are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the
judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you
may be thrown into prison. {26} I tell you the truth, you will
not get out until you have paid the last penny.
·
We do it in defiance of our
Lord’s example – we, who proclaim ourselves his
imitators.
Ray Stedman tells us a story about this in
his sermon on this passage:
I will never forget the time when Dr. H. A. Ironside, with
whom I have traveled, told me of an incident in his own life as
a Christian. When he was only eight years old, or so, his mother
took him to a meeting of the Brethren who were discussing some
kind of difficulty among themselves. Evidently there was some
terrible injustice that one felt others had done. Young Harry
Ironside did not know what the trouble was, but it was clear
they were deeply disturbed. He said that one man stood up and
shook his fist and said, "I don't care what the rest of you do.
I want my rights! That's all! I just want my rights!"
There was an old half-deaf Scottish brother sitting in the
front row, and he cupped his hand behind his ear and asked this
man, "Aye, brother, what's that ye say?" And the fellow said,
"Well, all I said was that I want my rights. That's all." The
old man said, "Your rights, brother, is that what you want, your
rights? Why the Lord Jesus didn't come to get his rights. He
came to get his wrongs, and he got them." Harry Ironside said,
"I'll always remember how that fellow stood transfixed for a
little while. Then he dropped his head and said, 'You're right,
brother, you're right. Settle it any way you like.'" And in a
few moments the whole thing was settled.
What should we do?
What, then, is a Christian to do?
Endurance
If nothing else can be done – and we are
greatly negligent in this matter in the church today – endure
the wrong. Why?
·
So that the church may not
be exposed to shame and disgrace. Rosemary Nixon tells
of her secretary. Whenever a Christian woman would call
her – Rosemary is a divorce attorney – the secretary
would rail against the church, proclaiming that
submission was the problem. Should we give the enemies
of Christ a chance to rave?
·
So that we might seek our
recompense from God the just, rather than from men. Who
would you rather have handle your case, anyway?
·
So that we might not be
defeated by Satan. Defeated? How?
There are several ways in which Satan uses
disputes in the church to attack both us as individuals and as a
church:
·
When we get taken up in such
a dispute, is it not the case that we are usually
setting our hearts on the things of this world, not on
the things of God? We don’t sue people over theology.
Set your hearts on things above!
·
Should we not accept
adversity at the hands of our Lord? Perhaps he is using
this incident to train us for greater things; should we
then reject his training and discipline in favor of “our
rights?”
·
We preach forgiveness. We
preach it as being without limit or condition. Should we
not practice what we preach?
·
Isn’t often the case that
our real motive in court is vengeance? But to whom does
vengeance belong – us, or God? How will He react to our
stealing what is rightfully his?
·
Finally, should we not show
mercy upon others, as God has shown mercy to us? He
causes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust – and
that was said when rain was a blessing to farmers, not
something to muddy your Cadillac. We have received his
mercy; we cannot repay it; we can at least pass it on.
If possible, seek resolution and
reconciliation in the church
Is it possible that the church has no person
capable of rendering good judgment in our trivial, worldly
affairs? If that is so, it is a terrible disgrace, for we are
commanded to seek wisdom. If we have run from it, we are indeed
in great distress as a church.
So the church is capable of doing this; but
why would we prefer the church to the courts? I submit there are
three reasons:
The power of the church is greater than the
power of the courts. All power and authority is given to
Christ, and the church is his body on earth. With the courts you
risk the anger of the judge; within the church you risk the
wrath of God.
So why, then, do we not routinely turn to the
church in these matters? Perhaps it is because the church has
relinquished the authority, and no longer speaks as being the
body of Christ, given the authority of binding and loosing. This
is a very sad thing.
The church brings more to the problem than
the courts. The courts are limited. The church has
techniques a court cannot imitate:
·
The church can get to the
root of the matter. If the problem is pride, then the
church can deal with it. I know of no court which can
deal effectively with this.
·
The church can provoke
generosity by love, where the courts can only provoke
anger and bitterness.
·
The courts can settle only
the evil at hand; the church can bring a greater good
out of it.
The unity of the church is strengthened by
this. When we submit matters to the church, we actually
strengthen the unity of the church.
What we shouldn’t do
One obvious thing: we shouldn’t go to court.
It embitters us; it embitters our brothers.
Perhaps more subtle is this: we should not
disgrace the church.
·
We should not disgrace the
church by going to court – that is clear.
·
But should it not be equally
clear that we need to keep control of our tongues in a
dispute – for exactly the same reason?
What does the world think, hearing two
Christians scream at each other?
We have a choice: we must decide what we
truly are. Are we ambassadors of reconciliation – or
attorneys-at-law?
