7 Therefore it is already altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Now indeed there is utterly a fault. Here we have the second part of the reproof, which contains a general doctrine; for he now reproves them, not on the ground of their exposing the gospel to derision and disgrace, but on the ground of their going to law with each other. This, he says, is a fault We must, however, observe the propriety of the term which he employs. For hettema in Greek signifies weakness of mind, as when one is easily broken down [1] by injuries, and cannot bear anything it comes afterward to be applied to vices of any kind, as they all arise from weakness and deficiency in fortitude. [2] What Paul, then, condemns in the Corinthians is this -- that they harassed one another with law-suits. He states the reason of it -- that they were not prepared to bear injuries patiently. And, assuredly, as the Lord commands us (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:21) not to be overcome by evils, but on the contrary to overcome injuries by acts of kindness, it is certain, that those who cannot control themselves so as to suffer injuries patiently, commit sin by their impatience. If contention in law-suits among believers is a token of that impatience, it follows that it is faulty In this way, however, he seems to discard entirely judgments as to the affairs of individuals. "Those are altogether in the wrong who go to law. Hence it will not be allowable in any one to maintain his rights by having recourse to a magistrate." There are some that answer this objection in this way -- that the Apostle declares that where there are law-suits there is utterly a fault, because, of necessity, the one or the other has a bad cause. They do not, however, escape by this sophistry, because he says that they are in fault, not merely when they inflict injury, but also when they do not patiently endure it. For my own part, my answer is simply this -- having a little before given permission to have recourse to arbiters, he has in this shown, with sufficient clearness, that, Christians are not prohibited from prosecuting their rights moderately, and without any breach of love. Hence we may very readily infer, that his being so severe was owing to his taking particularly into view the circumstances of the case. And, undoubtedly, wherever there is frequent recourse to law-suits, or where the parties contend with each other pertinaciously with rigor of law, [3] it is in that case abundantly plain, that their minds are immoderately inflamed with wrong dispositions, and are not prepared for equity and endurance of wrongs, according to the commandment of Christ. To speak more plainly, the reason why Paul condemns law-suits is, that we ought to suffer injuries with patience. Let us now see whether any one can carry on a law-suit without impatience; for if it is so, to go to law will not be wrong in all cases, but only epi to polu -- for the most part. I confess, however, that as men's manners are corrupt, impatience, or lack of patience (as they speak) is an almost inseparable attendant on lawsuits. This, however, does not hinder your distinguishing between the thing itself and the improper accompaniment. Let us therefore bear in mind, that Paul does not condemn law-suits on the ground of its being a wrong thing in itself to maintain a good cause by having recourse to a magistrate, but because it is almost invariably accompanied with corrupt dispositions; as, for example, violence, desire of revenge, enmities, obstinacy, and the like. It is surprising that this question has not been more carefully handled by ecclesiastical writers. Augustine has bestowed more pains upon it than the others, and has come nearer the mark; [4] but even he is somewhat obscure, though there is truth in what he states. Those who aim at greater clearness in their statements tell us that we must distinguish between public and private revenge; for while the magistrate's vengeance is appointed by God, those who have recourse to it do not rashly take vengeance at their own hand, but have recourse to God as an Avenger. [5] This, it is true, is said judiciously and appropriately; but we must go a step farther; for if it be not allowable even to desire vengeance from God, then, on the same principle, it were not allowable to have recourse to the magistrate for vengeance. I acknowledge, then, that a Christian man is altogether prohibited from revenge, so that he must not exercise it, either by himself, or by means of the magistrate, nor even desire it. If, therefore, a Christian man wishes to prosecute his rights at law, so as not to offend God, he must, above all things, take heed that he does not bring into court any desire of revenge, any corrupt affection of the mind, or anger, or, in fine, any other poison. In this matter love will be the best regulator. [6] If it is objected, that it very rarely happens that any one carries on a law-suit entirely free and exempt from every corrupt affection, I acknowledge that it is so, and I say farther, that it is rare to find a single instance of an upright litigant; but it is useful for many reasons to show that the thing is not evil in itself, but is rendered corrupt by abuse: First, that it may not seem as if God had to no purpose appointed courts of justice; Secondly, that the pious may know how far their liberties extend, that they may not take anything in hand against the dictates of conscience. For it is owing to this that many rush on to open contempt of God, when they have once begun to transgress those limits; [7] Thirdly, that they may be admonished, that they must always keep within bounds, so as not to pollute by their own misconduct the remedy which the Lord has permitted them to employ; Lastly, that the audacity of the wicked may be repressed by a pure and uncorrupted zeal, which could not be effected, if we were not allowed to subject them to legal punishments.
1 - "Aiseement abbatu et irrite;" -- "Easily hurt and irritated."
2 - The Greek term hettema is supposed by some to be derived originally from the Hebrew verb chtt to be broken, (which is rendered by hettaomai, in various instances in the Septuagint.) Our author had probably an eye to this when stating the original meaning of the term to be "weakness of mind, as when one is easily broken down by injuries." The term properly denotes defect It is instructive to observe, that a disposition to "go to law with brethren," rather than "suffer wrong," is represented by the Apostle as indicative of a defect, that is, in Christian meekness or brotherly love; while the opposite disposition, recommended by the Apostle, would, according to the standard of the world's morality, discover defect, in respect of want of spirit. -- Ed
3 - "Et qu'ils veulent veoir le bout du proces; (comme on dit;)" -- "And are desirous to see the issue of the case, (as the expression is.)"
4 - Our Author, when treating at some length of the same subject in the Institutes, (volume 3, p. 543,) makes a particular reference to Augustine. (Ep. 5. ad Marcell.) -- Ed.
5 - "Se retirent a Dieu comme a celuy a qui appartient la vengeance;" -- "They have recourse to God, as to him to whom vengeance belongeth." (Psalm 94:1.)
6 - "Pour estre bien gouuerne en ceci, il faut estre gaeni d'vne vraye charite;" -- "To be properly regulated in this, we must be adorned with true love."
7 - "Plusieurs tombent en ceste malediction, de mepriser Dieu ouuertement;" -- "Many fall into that curse of openly contemning God." (Psalm 10:13.)
There is utterly a fault - There is ALtogether a fault; or you are entirely wrong in this thing.
That ye go to law - That is, in the sense under discussion, or before pagan magistrates. This was the point under discussion, and the interpretation should be limited to this. Whatever may be the propriety or impropriety of going to law before Christian magistrates, yet the point which the apostle refers to was that of going to law before pagans. The passage, therefore, should not be interpreted as referring to all litigation, but only of that which was the subject of discussion. The apostle says that that was wholly wrong; that they ought by no means to go with their causes against their fellow Christians before pagan magistrates; that whoever had the right side of the question, and whatever might be the decision, "the thing itself" was unChristian and wrong; and that rather than dishonor religion by a trial or suit of this kind they ought to be willing to take wrong, and to suffer any personal and private injustice. The argument is, that greater evil would be done to the cause of Christ by the fact of Christians appearing before a pagan tribunal with their disputes than could result to either party from the injury done by the other - And this is probably always the case; so that although the apostle refers here to pagan tribunals the same reasoning, on the principle, would apply to Christians carrying their causes into the courts at all.
Why do ye not rather take wrong? - Why do ye not suffer yourself to be injured rather than to dishonor the cause of religion by your litigations? They should do this:
(1) Because religion requires its friends to be willing to suffer wrong patiently; Proverbs 20:22; Matthew 5:39-40; Romans 12:17, Romans 12:19; 1-Thessalonians 5:15.
(2) because great injury results to the cause of religion from such trials. The private wrong which an individual would suffer, in perhaps all cases, would be a less evil on the whole than the public injury which is done to the cause of piety by the litigations and strifes of Christian brethren before a civil court.
(3) the differences among Christians could be adjusted among themselves, by a reference to their brethren. In 99 cases out of 100, the decision would be more likely to be just and satisfactory to all parties from an amicable reference, than from the decisions of a civil court. In "the very few" cases where it would be otherwise, it would be better for the individual to suffer, than for the cause of religion to suffer. Christians ought to love the cause of their Master more than their own individual interest. They ought to be more afraid that the cause of Jesus Christ would be injured than that they should be a few pounds poorer from the conduct of others, or than that they should individually suffer in their character from the injustice of others.
To be defrauded? - Receive injury; or suffer a loss of property. Grotius thinks that the word "take wrong" refers to personal insult; and the word "defrauded" refers to injury in property. Together, they are probably designed to refer to all kinds of injury and injustice. And the apostle means to say, that they had better submit to any kind of injustice than carry the cause against a Christian brother before a pagan tribunal. The doctrine here taught is that Christians ought by no means to go to law with each other before a pagan tribunal; that they ought to be willing to suffer any injury from a Christian brother rather than do it. And by implication the same thing is taught in regard to the duty of all Christians, "that they ought to suffer any injury to their persons and property rather than dishonor religion by litigations before civil magistrates." It may be asked then whether law suits are never proper; or whether courts of justice are never to be resorted to by Christians to secure their rights? To this question we may reply, that the discussion of Paul relates only to Christians, when both parties are Christians, and that it is designed to prohibit such an appeal to courts by them. If ever lawful for Christians to depart from this rule, or for Christians to appear before a civil tribunal, it is conceived that it can be only in circumstances like the following:
(1) Where two or more Christians may have a difference, and where they know not what is right, and what the law is in a case. In such instances there may be a reference to a civil court to determine it - to have what is called "an amicable suit," to ascertain from the proper authority what the law is, and what is justice in the case.
(2) when there are causes of difference between Christians and the people of the world. As the people of the world do not acknowledge the propriety of submitting the matter to the church, it may be proper for a Christian to carry the matter before a civil tribunal. Evidently, there is no other way, in such cases, of settling a cause; and this mode may be resorted to not with a spirit of revenge, but with a spirit of love and kindness. Courts are instituted for the settlement of the rights of citizens, and people by becoming Christians do not alienate their rights as citizens. Even these cases, however, might commonly be adjusted by a reference to impartial people. better than by the slow, and expensive, and tedious, and often irritating process of carrying a cause through the courts.
(3) Where a Christian is injured in his person, character, or property, he has a right to seek redress. Courts, are instituted for the protection and defense of the innocent and the peaceable against the fraudulent, the wicked, and the violent. And a Christian owes it to his country, to his family, and to himself, that the man who has injured him should receive the proper punishment. The peace and welfare of the community demand it. If a man murders my wife or child, I owe it to the laws and to my country, to justice and to God, to endeavor to have the law enforced. So if a man robs my property, or injures my character, I may owe it to others as well as to myself that the law in such a case should be executed, and the rights of others also be secured. But in all these cases, a Christian should engage in such prosecutions not with a desire of revenge, not with the love of litigation, but with the love of justice, and of God, and with a mild, tender, candid and forgiving temper, with a real desire that the opponent may be benefited, and that all his rights also should be secured; compare the notes on Romans. 13.
There is utterly a fault among you - There is a most manifest defect among you,
1. Of peaceableness;
2. Of brotherly love;
3. Of mutual confidence; and
4. Of reverence for God, and concern for the honor of his cause.
Why do ye not rather take wrong? - Better suffer an injury than take a method of redressing yourselves which must injure your own peace, and greatly dishonor the cause of God.
(6) Now therefore there is utterly a (e) fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. (7) Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
(6) Now he goes further also, and even though by granting them private arbiters out of the congregation of the faithful, he does not simply condemn, but rather establishes private judgments, so that they are exercise without offence. Yet he shows that if they were such as they ought to be, and as it were to be wished, they should not need to use that remedy either.
(e) A weakness of mind which is said to be in those that allow themselves to be overcome by their lusts, and it is a fault that differs greatly from temperance and moderation: so that he nips those who could not endure an injury done to them. (7) This pertains chiefly to the other part of the reprehension, that is, that they went to law even under infidels, whereas they should rather have suffered any loss, than to have given that offence. But yet this is generally true, that we ought rather to depart from our right, than try the uttermost of the law hastily, and upon an affection to revenge an injury. But the Corinthians cared for neither, and therefore he says that they must repent, unless they will be shut out of the inheritance of God.
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you,.... Or a "defect": a want of brotherly love, or there would be no occasion to go to law at all; a want of wisdom and conduct, or proper persons would be pitched upon, and chosen out from among themselves to be arbitrators and judge between them; and a want of care among their leaders, who else would have pointed out to them such a method of accommodation, and not have suffered them to go the lengths they did:
because ye go to law one with another; which would never be, was there not a declension among you, a decay of your first love, and of the power of religion and true godliness:
why do ye not rather take wrong why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? than to go to law, especially before unjust persons and unbelievers, taking the advice of Christ, Matthew 5:40 It is more advisable to a believer to suffer wrong than to go to law with any man, and especially with a brother. It is a petition in the Jewish liturgy (g),
"let it please thee, O Lord God, and the God of my fathers, to deliver me this day, and every day---from hard judgment, and a severe adversary, , "whether he be a Son of the covenant, or whether he be not a son of the covenant".''
(g) Seder Tephillot, fol. 3. 2. Ed. Basil. fol. 5. 2. Ed. Amst.
utterly a fault--literally, "a shortcoming" (not so strong as sin). Your going to law at all is a falling short of your high privileges, not to say your doing so before unbelievers, which aggravates it.
rather take wrong-- (Proverbs 20:22; Matthew 5:39-40); that is, "suffer yourselves to be wronged."
Indeed there is a fault, that ye quarrel with each other at all, whether ye go to law or no. Why do ye not rather suffer wrong - All men cannot or will not receive this saying. Many aim only at this, "I will neither do wrong, nor suffer it." These are honest heathens, but no Christians.
*More commentary available at chapter level.