Lessons #161 and 162
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of disputes among believers (1 Cor 6:1-11)
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?2Do 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? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! 7The 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? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The primary message of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul in this passage is a simple one which is that Disputes between believers in a local church should be settled by the church through carefully selected members. The apostle developed this message sequentially. He stated the fundamental principle of handling disputes between believers in verse 1. He followed in verses 2 and 3 with reasons for the fundamental principle. Then he gave recommendation about those who should be involved in handling disputes between believers in verses 4 and 5. In verses 6 to 8, he stated the failures in Corinth regarding disputes between believers. Finally, in verses 9-11 the apostle gives reasons believers are not to wrong each other. Our exposition of the passage will follow this sequence of the development of the message as we have outlined.
It is our assertion that the primary message of this section of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is that Disputes between believers in a local church should be settled by the church through carefully selected members. Before we get to the details of exposition of the message, let me make three observations regarding the central message of the section. Our first observation concerns the use of the phrase “local church” in presenting the message. We used the phrase “local church” in stating the primary message of the passage because although we had stated that the epistle is for the universal church of Christ, but it was originally delivered to the Corinthians. The local church in Corinth faced the problem of disputes among believers that warranted the instruction of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul that we have in our passage. The implication is that the message while in principle is applicable to the universal church of Christ but in application it should be limited to a local church.
A second observation concerns the problem of executing this message in today’s world. It is true that the message is to be applied by a local church, but the principle stated in the message should apply to disputes between believers. This creates a problem because of the existence of denominations and fragmentation among believers. You see, when the Holy Spirit directed this instruction through the apostle to the Corinthians, there were no multiplicity of house churches in Corinth that did not interact with each other as in today’s world. Thus, it was easier for believers in Corinth to be governed by the principle stated in the passage that we will get to at the appropriate time. Today, we have believers in a small area belonging to various denominations or local churches that do not interact with each other. This makes it difficult to apply the principle of this message to all believers as the instruction given in our passage demands. This being the case, we must be cautious on how to remain biblical in dealing with disputes between believers who do not belong to the same local church. We will suggest how to deal with this problem after stating the principle the Holy Spirit gives us regarding how to deal with disputes between believers.
A third observation is although Roman society, like the modern North America, was extremely litigious, the courts are different from the courts here in the USA since there are believers in the court system of this country contrary to that of a Roman society or colony where the judges were all unbelievers and usually selected from the wealthy class of the society. Unlike, in principle, in the USA where everyone is to be treated equally before the law although in practice that is not usually the case since the wealthy receive better treatment under the law but that of the ancient Roman courts could not be said even to pretend that everyone is to be treated equally in the courts. This is because the privileged individuals received better treatment in the courts as conveyed in the different penalties written in the law for the upper class. The proceedings in the courts were known to be quite theatrical so that lawyers used such languages that are often nothing but character assassinations. It was permitted to be almost vulgar to speak against an enemy in court. Thus, the situations of the courts were quite contrary to the Christian way of life. Thus, it would not be difficult to understand the principle involved in the passage we are considering regarding believers going to court with one another.
Anyway, the fundamental principle of handling disputes between believers in a local church is that they should not be adjudicated by unbelievers but believers. This fundamental principle is derived from the question of the apostle to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
There are two questions we need to consider regarding the question that we indicated is the basis of stating the fundamental principle we have given. A first question regarding the question of 1 Corinthians 6:1 is whether the apostle is dealing with an actual problem in the church in Corinth or he was contemplating what would happen that has not yet happened. This question is warranted because of the way our English versions began the verse. Majority of our English versions begin the verse with the word “when” that is probably not different from the use of “if” in the NIV or the NEB. This is because the word “when” in the English may mean “in the event that” or “if.” Thus, there is no significant difference in the use of “when” and “if” in our English translations. The translators of the NIV or the NEB that used “if” is due to their interpretation of the Greek participle of a Greek word translated “has” in our passage. The clause of the NIV If any of you has a dispute with another is literally from the Greek having a case against another. The word “having” in the literal translation is the translation of a Greek participle used in our verse. A Greek participle is subjected to different interpretations but here it is interpreted by the translators of the NIV as indicating a condition hence the use of the word “if” in translating the participle. The problem is that the use of “if” or “when” may imply a sense of uncertainty in the question of the apostle regarding the action of taking someone to court. But there is no uncertainty in the question of the apostle. He was dealing with something taking place in the local church in Corinth. We say this for two reasons. The participle translated “has” in the NIV is in the present tense in the Greek. This present tense is to be understood as describing what was then taking place in Corinth, that is, what Greek grammarians describe as “Descriptive Present.” If the apostle had in mind something that would occur in the future, he would probably have used a future participle. Another reason for our interpretation is that that is the interpretation that is supported by what the apostle said in verse 6 of the chapter we are considering, that is, the sentence of 1 Corinthians 6:6 one brother goes to law against another. This sentence implies that some believers were taking fellow believers to court. The reasons we have given indicate the apostle was concerned with what was actually taking place in Corinth than what is contemplated. Therefore, in terms of translation it may be that we should avoid either the use of the word “if” or “when” unless the use of “when” is given in such a way that it conveys that the apostle was dealing with a situation that actually exists as we find in the Living Bible (LB) where the first part of the verse is translated How is it that when you have something against another Christian, you “go to law”...? Anyway, it is important to render the Greek question in such a way to reflect that the apostle was dealing with a situation that was present in the local church in Corinth at the time of this epistle. A good English version that did this is the NABRE that translates verse 1 as How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones?
A second question relating to the question of 1 Corinthians 6:1 concerns what the apostle meant in the word “another” in the verbal phrase of 1 Corinthians 6:1 has a dispute with another. In effect, the question is whether “another” is limited to only believers or it extends to unbelievers. The word “another” is translated from a Greek adjective (heteros) that may mean “other” of two that involves a contrast of a definite person or thing with another as Luke used it to narrate how Apostle Paul distinguished two Jewish religious groups based on the matter of resurrection in Acts 23:6:
Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.”
The word may mean “another” sometimes to denote others either of the same kind or of another kind. It is in the sense of “another” of the same kind that Apostle Paul used it in describing a woman who marries another man while the first husband is still living in Romans 7:3:
So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
It is in the sense of “other” or “another” of a different kind that the word is used to describe the two men crucified with Jesus Christ as stated in Luke 23:32:
Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.
Although Jesus was crucified with these criminals, He was different in kind because He was not crucified because of any sinful activity unlike the two men. The Greek word may mean “different” as it is used by Apostle Paul to describe a gospel preached by some that are not true and so different from what he preached, as stated in Galatians 1:6:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 6:1, it is used in the sense of another of the same kind, specifically fellow believers as member of the group recognized as “saints” or “God’s people.” This understanding limits the application of the fundamental principle we have stated regarding handling of disputes between believers in a local church. Of course, such limitation raises a problem for modern day local churches where believers and unbelievers often come together in the name of worship. I mean there are some unbelievers who are religious and so faithfully attend a local church. The question then is how to apply this principle to such a situation. The simplest answer is that before the principle is applied, it should be determined that the individuals concerned are both believers. If that is not the case, then it will be difficult to apply this principle unless the one who is an unbeliever that is a regular attendee of a local church agrees to abide by the decision of the local church the person attends.
Be that as it may, the fundamental principle we have stated concerned disputes among believers in a local church as in the verbal phrase of 1 Corinthians 6:1 has a dispute with another. The word “dispute” is translated from a Greek word (pragma) that may mean “undertaking, task, occupation” as the word is used to describe the help to be rendered to Phoebe regarding a task or undertaking in Romans 16:2:
I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.
The verbal phrase to give her any help she may need from you is literally help her in whatever task she may have need from you. The word may mean that which is done or happens hence means “deed, thing, event, occurrence, matter” as it is translated “things” to refer to the promise and God’s oath as unchangeable things in Hebrews 6:18:
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
The word may mean a matter of contention and so means “dispute, lawsuit.” It is in this later sense of “legal dispute” or a situation that may require seeking legal remedy, that is, “lawsuit” that the word is used in our passage of 1 Corinthians 6:1. Hence, the apostle is concerned with any situation of misunderstanding among believers that require arbitration to resolve for which people often take others to court.
In any case, the fundamental principle of handling disputes between believers in a local church is that they should not be adjudicated by unbelievers but by believers. This fundamental principle is presented both negatively and positively. Negatively, the fundamental principle indicates believers should not be bold enough to have their disputes adjudicated by unbelievers. It is this that is given in the expression of 1 Corinthians 6:1 dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment. This is an emphatic expression because although in the NIV the word “dare” is used in the second expression of the verse but in the Greek the word “dare” is the first word of the verse. This is unusual since a Greek sentence never begins with a verb but when that occurs then the author wished to be emphatic in what is communicated.
The word “dare” is translated from a Greek word (tolmaō) that means to show boldness or resolution in the face of danger, opposition, or a problem, hence means “to dare, bring oneself to do something.” It is with the meaning “to dare” that Apostle Paul used it to describe that a person would rarely die for a righteous person but will dare to die for a good man, as we read in Romans 5:7:
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
Although some take the position that there is no difference between a righteous person and a good person in this passage, but the apostle intended to distinguish the two. A righteous person is that individual who will rigidly follow exactly the letters of the law while a good person is one who is willing to be merciful and kind beyond what the law demands of the person so that person is not bound by legalistic requirements of the law. This aside, our Greek word is used with the meaning of “to have courage” in Apostle Paul’s statement of those who preach the gospel because of his imprisonment in Philippians 1:14:
Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
It is with the sense of “to bring oneself to do something, presume” that the word is probably used by Apostle Paul in stating that what he would speak about is what Christ has accomplished through him in Romans 15:18:
I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done—
Our Greek word is translated “venture” by the translators of the NIV or the NRSV although other English versions used such words as “to presume” or “to be bold.” In our passage of 1 Corinthians 6:1, it is in the sense of “to be courageous enough to do something,” that is, “to dare” that the apostle meant although the meaning “to bring oneself to do something” is equally possible. Thus, the negative element of the fundamental principle we are considering is that believers should not be courageous to allow something contrary to what is expected of believers to happen.
The thing that believers should not allow to happen is for unbelievers to adjudicate their legal disputes as in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 6:1 dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment. Literally the Greek reads to be judged before the unrighteous. This is because the verbal phrase “take...for judgment” is translated from a Greek word (krinō) that may mean “to judge, pass judgment upon, express an opinion about” as it is used in the Lord’s instruction concerning looking down on others in a condemning way in Matthew 7:1:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
The word may mean “to judge as guilty, condemn” as in Nicodemus’ question to Jewish leaders in John 7:51:
“Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?”
The word may mean “to punish” as in Stephen’s sermon as he referred to God’s promise of Abraham of punishing those who would enslave his descendants in Acts 7:7:
But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.’
The word may mean to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, hence means “to judge, think, consider, look upon,” as in Apostle Paul’s statement to the Jews who rejected the gospel message, as stated in Acts 13:46:
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
The word may mean “to criticize, find fault with, condemn” as in the instruction of proper attitude of a believer towards the matter of food in Romans 14:3:
The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
The word may mean “to prefer, select” as it is used to describe the preference of believers regarding day of worship in Romans 14:5:
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The word may mean to come to a conclusion after a cognitive process and so means “to reach a decision, decide, propose, intend,” as it is used in Apostle Paul’s instruction to Titus because of his decision, as stated in Titus 3:12:
As soon as I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, because I have decided to winter there.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 6:,1 the word means “to be judge” in the sense of to be brought to account for one’s actions in a courthouse setting and before a judge and be sentenced accordingly. It is not that a believer should not be judged in the sense of the word used here but the concern is with the ones doing the judging.
The participants in judging of two believers with legal disputes that are to be avoided are unbelievers. They are the ones in view in the phrase of the NIV of 1 Corinthians 6:1 before the ungodly. The word “ungodly” is translated from a Greek word (adikos) that pertains to acting in a way that is contrary to what is right, hence “unjust, crooked, unrighteous.” It is with the meaning “unjust” that Apostle Paul used it to indicate that God’s wrath poured on humans is right as we read in Romans 3:5:
But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
It is with the meaning “unrighteous” that our word is used for substitutionary death of Christ for sinners in 1 Peter 3:18:
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 6:1, it is used for a person who is not a member of the Christian community and by implication possibly unjust or unrighteous and so refers to the “impious unbeliever.” A judge who is impious could not be trusted to decide a case justly since such a person without the fear of God would be influenced by several factors to be unjust in the individual’s decision. For example, such a person could be bribed, or such a person could show partiality based on the outward appearance of someone since such an individual would not pay attention to the instruction of the Scripture that, for example, tells believers to avoid bribe when judging cases between people, as in Deuteronomy 16:19:
Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.
Consequently, it is fitting that negatively the fundamental principle we are considering requires that believers should not permit unbelievers to be their judge in matters that affect two believers.
Positively, the fundamental principle of handling disputes between believers is that fellow believers should be the ones involved in adjudicating of matters between believers. It is this requirement that is given in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 6:1 instead of before the saints. Because of the confusion among believers or even unbelievers, it is necessary that we comment on the word “saints” as used here. The word “saints” is translated from a Greek adjective (hagios) that pertains to being dedicated or consecrated to the service of God and so means “dedicated to God, holy, sacred.” The word may pertain to being holy in the sense of superior, moral qualities, and possessing certain essential divine qualities in contrast with what is human so means “holy, pure, divine.” It is in this sense that the word is used to describe God whose holiness believers are to imitate, as stated in 1 Peter 1:15–16:
15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”
When the adjective is used with a definite article in the singular, it refers to “the holy” whether of a thing or a person. Thus, it can be used to refer to that which is holy as it was used in Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:6:
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
The description what is sacred may alternatively be translated what is holy. In this meaning of “the holy,” the Greek word is used in the NT for Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit but never an individual believer. It is used to describe Jesus Christ several times in the Gospels and in Acts as the Holy One. Demons addressed Jesus as the Holy One in Mark 1:24:
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
Peter used our word with the definite article to describe Jesus as recorded in John 6:69:
We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Again, when Peter addressed those who witnessed the healing of a crippled beggar, he described Jesus as “the Holy One” as recorded in Acts 3:14:
You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.
Our Greek adjective is used in the singular with the definite article for the Holy Spirit in John 14:26:
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The examples we cited indicate that when our Greek adjective is used with a definite article in the singular, it means “the holy” but only in reference to deity. There is no single passage in the NT where the Greek adjective is used to describe a human being or any single individual.
The situation is different when the Greek adjective is in the plural and used with the definite article. When the Greek adjective is used with the definite article in the plural, the meaning is “the holy ones.” The phrase “the holy ones” most often rendered with the word “saints” in our English versions is one that is used in the Scripture to describe God’s people, that is, those in a covenant relationship with Him. In the OT, the psalmist used it to describe God’s people in Psalm 16:3:
As for the saints who are in the land, they are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight.
Daniel used the word “saints” for God’s people in Daniel 7:25:
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.
In both passages of Psalm and Daniel, the word “saints” from the Septuagint literally reads “the holy ones” because the plural of the definite article and plural of our Greek adjective are used. In the NT, the combination of the plural of the definite article and our Greek adjective is used primarily to describe believers in the Lord Jesus Christ where, the Greek phrase is commonly translated “saints” in our English versions.
The very first use of the Greek phrase translated “saints” to describe believers in Christ is given in Acts 9:32:
As Peter traveled about the country, he went to visit the saints in Lydda.
Apostle Paul used the phrase the saints to describe believers in Romans 12:13:
Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
The phrase God’s people is literally the saints. In our passage of 1 Corinthians 6:1, it is used to describe God’s people. Subsequently, the recommendation of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul is that believers should take their legal disputes to fellow believers to adjudicate.
Be that as it may, the fundamental principle of handling disputes between believers in a local church is that they should not be adjudicated by unbelievers. This principle raises two issues regarding its application in a general sense. The first question is; does the principle apply when two believers involved are not of the same local church? The second is: how does this apply when the situation is between a believer and unbeliever? We begin with the first question regarding the applicability of the fundamental principle we stated between two believers who have disputes but do not belong to the same local church.
The question is whether the fundamental principle that we have stated that concerns believers not taking their disputes to unbelievers applies to two believers in different local churches. The answer is that the principle applies. We should remember that it is failures on our part that often have separated believers from one another through denomination, as we stated previously. You see, the ideal situation would be that all believers in each local area would belong to the same local church. This was the situation at the beginning of church since we hear of the believers assembling together to receive teaching from the apostles, as we may gather from Acts 2:42–47:
42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
It is probably the case that as the number of believers grew, they were subdivided into house churches that interacted with each other but we cannot be certain of this since there is no direct mention of it in the record in Acts other than they met in homes. That aside, the epistle of 1 Corinthians that we are considering implies that the believers in Corinth at the time of this epistle all met in one location. Thus, the instruction given on how to deal with disputes among believers assumed that all believers are in the same local church. We should not doubt that believers in a specific local area met in the same local church. This, we deduce from the fact that when the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul gave Titus the task of appointing elders in Crete, the appointment is to be for each town implying that believers in a given town met together, as implied in Titus 1:5:
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
Thus, we contend that it is because of failures of believers in one way or another that are responsible for having so many local churches in a given area such as along ethnic groups when this was not the cse with the early church. Despite this problem, it would be proper if the local churches interact with each other in the same area, ignoring doctrinal differences so long as the fundamental doctrine of the church that concerns the gospel of Jesus Christ is not compromised. If there is interaction between local churches, then it is possible to apply the fundamental principle concerning dealing with disputes among believers to two believers in different local churches as we will suggest shortly.
We must be clear that there is no direct instruction in the Scripture as to how the principle of believers not taking their dispute to courts of unbelievers should be applied between believers in two different local churches. Now, we should recognize that there is no problem that we face for which the principle of handling it is not in the Scripture. The problem is whether we know enough of the Scripture to be able to apply what is already given in the Scripture to the problem at hand. The principle of how to deal with the situation we are considering is already given by the Lord Jesus Christ when He gave the principle of how a believer should deal with another believer that wrongs the person, as we read in Matthew 18:15–17:
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Based on this passage, we can work out the problem of dealing with disputes between two believers who are not in the same local church. The first thing a believer who has a legal dispute with another believer is to approach the other believer seeking to resolve the problem between two of them. This is a difficult step for us to do but that should be where we begin. If there is no headway to resolving the problem, then by the instruction of our Lord a second step should be taken by the believer who has been wronged. This second step should involve another believer. If there is another believer known by both parties, the help of such a believer should be enlisted. In effect, the one who has been wronged should reach out to the believer that is known to both parties to try to help mediate the problem. However, if there is no believer known by both parties having the dispute then the second step should be skipped in favor of the third step. The third step in our Lord’s instruction is to take the matter to the church. This step requires modification in application since both believers do not belong to the same local church. A practical approach would be for the believer who has been wronged to inform his/her pastor of the problem and then to inform the pastor of the offender so that both pastors would get together and attempt to mediate the dispute. This step requires that pastors should not be concerned with their doctrinal differences at this point but to apply God’s word to the situation. They should meet and help resolve problem between the two believers. Of course, it is necessary that both pastors should operate under the filling of the Holy Spirit and be guided by the Scripture, so they are not partial to the member of their congregation as they decide the case between the parties involved.
What if the pastors are unable to resolve the dispute because both parties do not accept the pastors’ decision? If this happens, then the pastors would have to determine which of the parties is in the wrong and that is the one to which what our Lord taught should be applied. Our Lord indicated that the one who is guilty that refuses to listen to the church should be treated as a pagan or tax collector. Treating a believer as a pagan or tax collector implies shunning of such a person since that is how the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ treated tax collectors as we may gather from the question of the Pharisees to Jesus’ disciples about Jesus eating with them in Matthew 9:11:
When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”
Hence, treating another believer as a pagan or tax collector means to shun the individual. However, such action would not normally resolve the dispute between the two parties. Therefore, the one who is wronged should then treat a fellow believer as the individual would treat an unbeliever with whom there is a legal dispute. This brings us to the second question of how a believer should treat an unbeliever with whom the individual has a dispute.
The answer of how a believer should deal with an unbeliever with whom the individual has a legal dispute is one that is complex but regardless of how the believer handles the matter, it is important that the believer should operate on the principle of love. In effect, the believer must not hate the unbeliever but must love the individual as our Lord Jesus demands of believers in His Sermon on the Mount, as stated in Matthew 5:43–46:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
If a believer operates in love and not hatred for the unbeliever with whom the individual has a dispute, then there are two options a believer has. A first option is accepting the wrong done without doing anything to the unbeliever. This, of course, is the case where there is personal injury to the believer that involves no financial cost to the believer. We mean that the dispute does not involve personal injury that would require medical attention where a believer does not have a means of paying for the medical cost. A situation such as that may be handled through the second option.
A second option a believer has regarding dealing with disputes with an unbeliever is to take the person to the court for the court to adjudicate the case, bearing in mind the court may not be just in handling of a specific dispute either because the judge is bribed or because of bias on the part of the court system. The dispute that a believer might take an unbeliever to court would normally involve property dispute where each claims a given property or where the unbeliever encroaches on the property of the believer. The basis for this statement is that it is a property dispute that in the law is required to be brought before judges in Israel, as we read in Exodus 22:9:
9In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges. The one whom the judges declare guilty must pay back double to his neighbor.
The principle here is that of dispute over ownership of a given property. Therefore, when there is dispute between a believer and an unbeliever there is nothing wrong in taking the matter to the court to decide. Land disputes fall into this principle and so should be taken to the court so that the matter may be decided. The issue of land ownership is one that was important because in Israel, it was not permitted for land to be sold permanently, as we read in Leviticus 25:23–24:
23“‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. 24Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.
Today, people sell their land permanently but that should be the decision of the owner of the property and not that of another who wrongly encroaches on someone’s property. Anyway, we indicated also that a believer could take an unbeliever to court if personal injury is involved that would require medical costs. The reason we say this is because the principle of paying for injury is one established in the law, as we read in Exodus 21:22–25:
22“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It will seem that the Lord’s teaching on the Sermon on the Mount conflicts with this passage as we read in Matthew 5:38–39
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Our Lord did not abolish the instruction given in the law that is known as Lex talionis which literally means ‘the law of retaliation’ and operates on principle of exact retribution. This principle serves to define justice and to limit vengeance so that no one could take the law in his hands. God’s intention is that the punishment must fit the crime. Consequently, what Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount was to correct its misinterpretation and application by Jewish authorities. Hence, there is nothing wrong with asking a person who caused injury to another to be responsible for it. Anyway, the point is that a believer could take an unbeliever to court under the conditions we have stated. This point is illustrated by the Apostle Paul when he appealed his case with the Jews to Caesar in Rome, as stated in Acts 25:10–11:
10Paul answered: “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. 11If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”
Hence if the apostle appealed his case between him, the believer, and unbelieving Jews to Caesar then there must not be anything wrong with a believer taking an unbeliever to court in certain situations. The implication of this statement is that a believer could take another believer to court if the believer had gone through the steps we considered, of dealing with disputes among believers, since the offending believer is to be treated as an unbeliever or a pagan. In any case, we have considered the application of the fundamental principle of dealing with disputes among believers. We will continue with the reasons for such an approach in our next study.
09/06/19