The Corinthians misunderstood many of the principles by which Christians should live. Paul wrote an extensive letter to them enumerating many things related to proper worship, marital relationships, the resurrection, earthly and divine wisdom, and on carrying a brother to court. Here are his words:

"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 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? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another---and this in front of unbelievers! 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? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers." (1 Cor. 6:1-8, NIV.)

1) Paul is chiding the Corinthians for their lack of wisdom in handling the simplest of disputes. Do you not have a wise man among you? Earlier Paul denounced the wisdom of this world. He wrote, "The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength." (1:25.) The Gentiles had prided themselves concerning their wisdom. Among them were noted philosophers of the day. Generally, the Jews were more cautious about carrying their cases to heathen courts. However, the Gentiles were fond of disputatious lawsuits with each other. Probably, the Greek Christians brought cases before pagan judges. (Word Pictures in New Testament, A. T. Robertson, 117.) In chapter 6, Paul asks if they do not have a wise man to decide their simple disputes.

2) In addition, Paul pointed out the problem of believers carrying their disputes before non-believers. In modern slang language, we would say, "Do not expose your dirty laundry before others!"

3) Further, he adds that it is better to be wronged than to carry these personal matters among believers before the heathen courts.

4) Paul was fond of using the "how much more" argument. If we are going to judge angels and the world, then can we not judge these smaller issues that belong to this life? He does not explain what or how we will be involved in judging angels and the world, but simply states it as a fact. Judging angels probably refers to fallen angels who sinned against the Lord. We do not judge the world independently of Jesus, the Judge of all. We "sit with him on this throne." (Rev. 3:21.)

This statement by Paul raises many difficult questions. Some of them are: 1) Should we have judges appointed in the church? Men to judge differences among brethren? Some churches do. 2) What sort of cases should we conduct? Libel suits, inheritance disputes, divorces, landlord and renter cases, personal liability suits? Did Paul include every sort of lawsuits that our civil and criminal courts now handle daily?? 3) What should we do when the laws of the country forbid us from judging these cases? Should we "obey God rather than men" and go to jail? 4) Where are the New Testament case examples to guide our decisions? Should we use the OT law precedents for handling various disputes? 5) Should we practice an eye for an eye?

Jewish. According to the Law of Moses, the Jews handled their internal matters among themselves. Note the number and diversity of cases mentioned in Exodus 21-23. These are law cases with penalties declared. They include marriage and divorce, stealing, injuring another, cursing parents, injuring and killing neighbor’s cattle, etc. The Law declared life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (21:23-25.) Paul’s Jewish heritage would have caused him immediately to think of Jewish judges and how they decided such cases. However, Paul did not follow through giving details of how such judgments would be conducted, what penalties inflicted, and whether he meant that all cases should be determined by believers.

Remember that there is a great difference between the nation of Israel and the church of the new covenant. Israel was a theocratic nation; that is, it functioned in Jewish society as both a political entity and a religious body. Their kings were anointed by prophets and guided by messages from God. Judgments were made from the Law of Moses and from the wisdom of men who believed in Jehovah. Judges were a part of Jewish life just as kings, priests and prophets were. The church is different in that it is not a theocratic body. It functions in the sphere of the spiritual, primarily. God established the power of the state as well as the home and church. (Romans 13.)

Christian practices. The church never functioned as a theocratic body. Its jurisdiction is primarily spiritual in nature. Its judgments concern moral and ethical conduct, not civil or criminal. Religious leaders have differed over the extent to which Paul’s admonition should be followed in staying out of the courts of unbelievers.

After Constantine the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exercised great political power along with the leaders of the Roman government. They were granted such power by the state. Once the Roman empire sought to crush the influence of Christianity, but later favored the very body they opposed. During the time of co-operation between the church and state, the church decided many cases of civil and even criminal conduct. One such man with enormous political and religious power in the life of a community was Augustine.

"Augustine started with none of the advantages of a born aristocrat; and he will establish his position, over the course of years, by fighting hard for it. It was, therefore, only in his more humble capacity as an arbitrator in lawsuits, that Augustine found himself a vital figure in the community. For he offered the one thing everyone wanted: a free, quick and uncorrupted settlement of cases. The Christian bishop was empowered to impose a settlement, by arbitration, on consenting parties. Augustine was mobbed: crowds of litigants, pagans and heretics quite as much as Catholic Christians, would keep him busy from the early morning, often until late afternoon. It was the one aspect of his routine in Hippo, which Augustine heartily resented: O with what obstreperous crowds and with what longing he said, ‘Get hence from me, wicked men, and I shall gaze upon the commandments of God.’ Certainly he must mean those who fight each other stubbornly in our court, and, when they set out to oppress good men, spurn our judgments, and make us fritter away time we could devote to providing divine things." (Augustine of Hippo, A biography by Peter Brown, 1969, 195-96.)

The Catholic Church functioned much as a theocratic body as Israel of old. Other religious bodies did not have that kind of influence, except the Church of England and some others who established alliances with the state. In America, we have a history of separation between church and state. We are more accustomed to this setting and tradition. This affects our views of Paul’s statements greatly, just as Paul’s experiences as a Jew and believers in Augustine’s day were great influenced by the relationships that then existed between church and state.

What conclusions should we draw concerning Paul’ words to the Corinthians? Here are some that I believe to be important:

#1: Disputes among Christians weaken our influence for good in the community.

It is as unseemly, even more so, for brother to sue brother at law as for members of the same family. Jesus was once asked to settle a dispute between two brothers over their inheritance. Jesus asked, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them, Take heed and beware of covetousness; for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." (Luke 12:13-15.)

Jesus could have settled the quarrel if he so desired. He knew the hearts of each and could have easily stated a fair settlement. But their problem went much deeper. They were covetous; therefore, Jesus rebuked and left them alone. How did they settle their dispute? Did they go to court over it? We do not know. But Jesus and Paul gave the solutions to all such problems. Stop being covetous. There are more serious spiritual issues behind most disputes. The civil authorities cannot and most often do not address the spiritual problems that lurk beneath.

The Collinsville, Oklahoma court case of one disfellowshipped by the elders brought national attention to the church (1981). Marian Guinn did much wrong by suing the church in court. There was an outside settlement; part of the agreement was to keep the amount secret. The world sees these disputes in bad light. She compounded her error, if indeed she committed adultery, by suing the elders for announcing her name publicly.

#2: Christians should suffer wrong first!

Paul and Jesus taught that we should be willing to suffer a temporary injustice rather than to carry our grievances to the unbelievers.

"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?" (1 Cor. 6:7.)

"Ye have heard it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." (Matt. 5:38-40.)

Jesus taught the doctrine of going the second mile and suffering wrong rather than practicing an "eye for an eye." It is not according to human nature to so respond, but it is according to Christian nature. Jesus practiced such himself. "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not. But committed himself to him that judgeth righteously." (1 Peter 2:23.)

I said that we should be willing to suffer "temporary injustice." There are many unsettled cases of mistreatment in this world. The cases are not closed! God will bring us all into judgment. "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:30-31.)

#3: The church is not designed to handle all cases

Jesus said that we should give to Caesar the things that belong to Caesar. (Matt. 22:21.) There is the realm that belongs to "Caesar." Paul taught that "the powers that be" are ordained of God. (Rom. 13:1.) I believe that God ordained the home, the church and the state. All of these perform divine functions for man. There are things that the state cannot regulate (like the heart); things that the home cannot do; and things that the church should not try to do (the Crusades to recapture the city of Jerusalem from the Arabs).

We have not been given a set of case laws by which to judge civil and criminal disputes. All we have been given are general principles of conduct; how we should treat one another as Christians. The problem arises when we suffer the wrong and the person keeps on oppressing. Should we not then appeal to Caesar? I believe that we can and should. Otherwise, hardened persons will continue to abuse and to destroy.

What about the things that we said above concerning suffering the wrong and destroying our influence among unbelievers? I believe that there is a difference between personal disputes and quarrels over little matters ("the smallest matters"--1 Cor. 6:2) versus criminal deeds and threats against one’s life. Here are some cases that the church is not designed to handle: divorce cases (even marriages are not "sacraments of the church"), insurance liabilities, criminal cases, drug abuse, etc. Do we have the power to levy fines, imprison and to take someone’s life??? If so, where are the guidelines in Scripture for the church handling such cases. These matters belong to the state.

#4: Is the person really a "brother/sister?"

In 1 Cor. 6:1-8, Paul may have in mind the problem mentioned in chapter 5---a man having his father’s wife. If so, we might say that the person has sinned against God and is not acting as a Christian should. Note these words: "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or an extortioner, with such a one, no, not to eat." (5:11.) Anytime someone has a serious issue with another, someone has acted the part of a non-Christian. However, that does not mean that we should proceed with court suits against the person as if he is not a brother. He is a brother who has sinned. The wrongs committed do not mean that we should consider them non-Christians. Jesus statements in the sermon on the mount did not indicate a brother was under consideration. He simply said, "If any man will sue thee at the law. . . . " (Matt. 5:40.)

To declare the person a non-Christians due to their behavior does not give one the right for frivolous litigation or to sue for personal gain (money).

Just because the person is a brother or sister does not mean that you cannot under any circumstances sue them in a court of law.

A Christian should not carry even a non-Christian to court for personal gain motivated by covetousness. "For the love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Tim. 6:10.) Many court suits in America are to gain riches. (Ex. smokers suing tobacco companies for millions of dollars for something that they inflicted upon themselves! This is not to pardon the behavior of the tobacco companies hiding information that the public needs to know. But many of them would have continued smoking no matter the ingredients! Many simply want quick riches.)