Have you heard Christians say something like, “Christians should not go to court against each other”? If you have, you might also have heard them use 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 as the basis for the claim. So then, if you have a dispute with a Christian over unpaid rent, property damage, defamation, etc, the Bible mandates that you must not take up a lawsuit again them. Is this what the Apostle Paul meant and is this how he envisages it to be relevant to us today?

Paul (in the bible) attacks the inappropriate manipulation of a fellow Christian through the use of superior wealth, power, patronage, social influence, or business networks.

In Hermeneutics – An Introduction by Anthony C. Thiselton (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , 2009), he provides a historical setting that throws light on this passage. I’d like to quote what he wrote below and trust that it will help us to better understand what Paul meant.

“…I used another example from 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Here Paul declares, “If one of you has a dispute with another, how dare he go to law before a pagan court” (6:1). “Must Christian go to law with Christian? … You suffer defeat if you go to law” (vv. 6-7). A widespread assumption is that these verses condemn any resort to the law on the part of Christians. But is this the point at issue, not least for twenty-first-century readers? Historical and archaeological research demonstrates that although Corinth was a Greek city in the geographical sense, the constitution, politics, law, and government of Corinth were modeled on the institutions of Rome, not Greece, in Paul’s day. … This bears on our passage, for while Roman criminal law was relatively impartial, civil lawsuits operated differently. It was expected that both parties to a dispute would offer incentives to the judge (and when applicable, to the jury) to grant a favorable verdict. This might be an unashamed financial bribe, or offering the benefit of business contacts,…gifts of property or slaves, or whatever.

In such a situation, only rich and influential Christians would consider taking a fellow Christian to the civil courts. Paul attacks not a responsible use of law; indeed, he himself appeals to Roman law. Here he attacks the inappropriate manipulation of a fellow Christian through the use of superior wealth, power, patronage, social influence, or business networks. This amounts to using indirect force to gain what the wealthier party covets. Prohibition of resort to law as such, is not what these verses mean. … Careful inquiry into Paul’s purpose, the responsible use of reason, and respect for contextual constraints discern the meaning of the passage in relation to its rootedness in time and place.”

In bringing this up, I do not intend to encourage more lawsuits among Christians! Neither am I saying that this is the only aspect which Paul raised in this passage. But I thought it would be helpful to highlight again how historical setting and context, among other devices, help us to arrive at the authorial intent behind a Bible passage, and thereby, its meaning and relevance today. After all, the Bible cannot mean just whatever we want it to mean.

Blessings!

Mok Kok Hoong

Now watch a 9-minute interview video with Prof Anthony C Thiselton where he explains the importance of studying Hermeneutics.