1 Corinthians 6:1-8 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?… The apostle here deals with a fresh mistake made by the Corinthian Christians. In view of the extensive commercial interests of Corinth, we can well understand that disputes constantly arose which could only be settled by the common law courts. St. Paul does not intend us to infer that these law courts were unjustly conducted, or that, in ordinary matters and under ordinary circumstances, recourse may not be had to them. He only points out that the new feeling and sentiment which they should have and cherish, as Christian disciples, would be opposed to the litigious spirit, and fill them with an anxiety to set things right with their brethren rather than to struggle for the securing of their own rights. He glances, further, at the misconception which the surrounding heathen would form of such indications of quarrelling among the Christians. "We can well understand how detrimental to the best interests of Christianity it would be for the Christian communion, founded as it was on principles of unity and love, to be perpetually, through the hasty temper and weakness of individual members, held up to the scorn of the heathen, as a scene of intestine strife." The principle laid down by the apostle led in later times to the appointment of courts of arbitration. Of these we have historical evidence in the middle of the second century. It has been pointed out that the proper illustration of St. Paul's principle should be sought, not in a Christian country, but in a heathen country where Christians may Happen to reside. On his principle, as it may now be applicable to us, we propose to dwell. I. ST. PAUL THROWS NO SLIGHT ON PUBLIC LAW. HOW are we to regard law? Is it the arbitrary command of a ruler? Or is it a national code created by the gifts of some legal genius, some Lycurgus or Justinian? Is it not rather a nation discovering the importance of the protection of its persons and. property, mutually agreeing to the adoption of rules for the securing of such protection, and putting the applications of such rules into the hands of certain individuals, called kings, judges, or magistrates? So for a people to disobey the laws is more truly rebellion against themselves, against their best interests, than against their rulers; and every individual in a nation is bound both to honour and to keep the law. St. Paul would fully recognize this, and intend no disrespect by what he says concerning it. We should observe that he carefully distinguishes the sphere of law to which he refers. Explain the difference between the "criminal" and "equity" courts at our assizes. St. Paul deals with matters of dispute, with equity questions, not with crime. And he very properly urges that such disputes usually rest on "strong feeling," "misunderstanding," etc., and consequently can be best dealt with from within the Christian brotherhood, which can recognize "feeling," and help its members to overcome "faults." Elsewhere he urges full obedience to the "powers that be." But he pleads that the Christians only confessed their failure from the Christian spirit when they could not give way one to the other, but were compelled to get outsiders and heathen to tell them what was just and right. So still we may say there are only a few things in respect of which Christians are justified in going to law, and they concern wholly the interpretations of national law in relation to rights of property. For these it is sometimes necessary to get an authoritative decision. Happily, the principle of arbitration is spreading in trade disputes and in national differences. Christians will hail the day when arbitration, the handmaid of peace, gains her rule in every land, and men and nations "learn war no more." II. ST. PAUL ASSUMES THE AUTONOMY (SELF RULE) OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. He would have them fully understand that, as a Church, they were quite competent to manage their own affairs - all their affairs, and certainly all internal disputes. Show on what frequently declared and comprehensive principles the apostle's argument is based. 1. The Church of Christ is a society. 2. It is a separated society, standing free from the world; in it, but not of it. 3. It is a complete society; the Head and the members together make up a "whole body." 4. It is a society resting on a common basis, the "life in Christ," not on a common opinion, nor on a common order, but on a common life, which makes it as one family. 5. It is a society under a living Head. It endures as "seeing him who is invisible;" and it is a spiritual realization of the "theocracy," or direct practical ruling of the Divine Lord. 6. It is a society with judicial functions. Show that the Church has disciplinary powers which it may bring to bear on the moral offender (as at Corinth); and consultative powers which it may employ to settle family, trade, or society disputes. 7. It is a society with a character, one of whose leading features is "mutual forbearance" - a self denying regard rather for the welfare of others than for our own. In such a society it would be manifestly inappropriate for any member who had a contention with a fellow member to "go to law before the unjust." The high Christian feeling finds expression in St. Paul's intense language, "Why do ye not rather take wrong, why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" - R.T. Parallel Verses KJV: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? |
    |