Bible references

Key NT Scriptures

• 1 Corinthians 6:1-7
  Click to retrieve 1 Corinthians 6:1-7

Supportive NT Scriptures

• Galatians 6:1-2
• Matthew 5:23-26
• Matthew 18:15-17

Supportive OT Scriptures

• Deuteronomy 19:15-18
  Jewish Commentary
• Proverbs 19:11
  Jewish Commentary

Bible verses copyright: PUBLIC DOMAIN except in the United Kingdom, where a Crown Copyright applies to printing the KJV. See http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/queens-printers-patent

Commentary

Rabbi Michael Rudolph

The most common interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:1 is that believers must not sue each other in a secular court under any circumstance. Even if that was what Sha’ul meant for the First Century in which he spoke it, I do not believe it should be interpreted that way today. My reasons for saying this comes both from the wider text that includes verses 2 through 7 , and also from our change of circumstances in this Twenty-First Century. First the text: 1 Corinthians 6:1 in the CJB states: “How dare one of you with a complaint against another go to court before pagan judges and not before God's people?” [b’nei din] According to Jay P. Green, Sr., 17 the Greek words “ καὶ οὐχὶ ” in the verse mean “also not” 18 so, if the verse were translated “and also not,” we have: “How dare one of you with a complaint against another go to court before pagan judges and also not before God's people?” This seemingly minor change is not minor at all because the inclusion of that one word “also” infers that two believers can litigate an issue in both courts – in a secular court so long as they also bring the matter before a bet din . Since it is unseemly to imbue a secular court with appeal authority over a beit din and risks contradictory judgments if one litigates in the two courts simultaneously, it is my belief that the only way for a believer to bring his or her dispute to a secular court is to first bring it to a beit din and for the beit din to order its removal to a secular court. Now since a beit din is imbued with biblical authority to judge controversies why, one may ask, is it ever necessary to bring a matter to a secular court? It is because in this Twenty-First Century and in most western nations, b’nei din are not allowed the same jurisdictions and, in the case of overlapping jurisdictions, the same powers of enforcement as they had in ancient times – even during the lifetimes of Yeshua and Sha’ul. The result is that, without recourse to secular courts, contesting believers today would not be able to receive justice in certain matters, could they not find their way to a secular court. The principal way that a believer is to initiate resolution of his complaint against another believer is detailed in Matthew 18:15-18 . This assumes that the complaint is civil and not criminal, since criminal offenses are against secular society at large and not against individuals. B’nei din today Jay P. Green, Sr., The Interlinear Bible , ed. 2, 1986. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance translates the Greek word #3750 as “not indeed” and “nay, not.” are given no jurisdiction in secular criminal matters, but do have limited jurisdiction over matters in the communities to which they belong. The complaining believer is to go first to his brother alone and, if reconciliation of his complaint is not achieved, he is to bring one or two witnesses with him and try again. If that is unsuccessful and he chooses to proceed, he asks for a beit din of believers to be convened to hear his complaint and render judgment. If judgment is rendered against the responding brother and the brother does not receive the judgment or disobeys orders of the beit din, the community of believers is informed, and the respondent is treated as if he were an unbeliever. Since there is no prohibition against believers suing unbelievers in secular courts, this is one way that a controversy between believing brothers can end up there. It is the route that should be taken when a believer in Yeshua seeks a divorce or separation from his or her spouse regardless of whether his or her spouse is a believer. The purpose is to determine, by a finding of the beit din, whether or not the divorce sought is on biblically allowed grounds. Also, after a biblical divorce (a get ) is granted, the innocent believing spouse may still need to follow up in a secular court in order to be able to remarry or to receive enforced child support. Another way for a controversy between believers to be rightly adjudicated in a secular court is for a beit din to authorize it. There is sometimes a need for secular intervention due to the limitation of a beit din’s jurisdiction or power of enforcement. An example is when a key witness is subpoenaed and refuses to testify. A beit din cannot arrest the witness and bring him to court, whereas a secular court can. There are a myriad of other circumstances as well in which a secular court can act but a beit din cannot. One such circumstance is where a beit din renders judgment against a respondent for a sum of money, and the respondent ignores the judgment. The beit din cannot attach the respondent’s property to satisfy the judgment, whereas a secular court can. 1 Corinthians 6:7 says: “ Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” This applies if retribution is all that is being sought, but it is different if justice is at stake, or satisfying a money judgment is needed for a complainant’s survival.

Copyright © Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster, The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective - Volume 3

Source and License

Based on The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective by Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster.

Volume 1 & 2 | Volume 3

License: CC BY-ND 4.0 (Attribution required, NoDerivatives). CC BY-ND 4.0

Disclaimer: the original content is authored by Rabbi Michael Rudolph and Rabbi Daniel Juster; additional notes or implementation details on this website are not part of their original work and do not represent their views.

Record source: The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective - Volume 3

Copyright note: Copyright © Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster, The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective - Volume 3