What course should a Christian take towards one who is in debt to him? Is it proper to go to law to recover a debt?
What says the Scripture? "What is written in the law? How do you read?" (Luke 10:26)
We know well enough what course the world takes in such a case; and if the Word of God has nothing to say about it, then we can do as the world does; but if God has spoken, then we as Christians can do nothing else than what He says, no matter how widely it may differ from the way of the world.
Before taking up what the Bible says about going to law, let me repeat what I have before said in this "Corner" about that, so that there can be no possible ground for the idea that I am apologizing for debt, or taking the side of the debtor, against the creditor. "The wicked borrow, and pay not again." (Psalm 37:21)
That fixes the standing of the man who does not pay his debts, and especially of a man who contracts a debt which he has no prospect of paying. The well-instructed, sincere Christian never does such a thing. "The borrower is servant to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7)
But God's people are all free; He is the Deliverer, and He does not rule over slaves. God's subjects are all rulers. He says that His people shall lend to many nations, and not borrow. (Deuteronomy 15:6) It is evident, therefore, that no one who really understands and values the liberty wherewith Christ makes us free (Galatians 5:1) will voluntarily subject himself to the bondage of debt.
Now let us come directly to the point, and read in plain words what the Bible says about going to law. "You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if a man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also." (Matthew 5:38-40)
What could be plainer? "If any man will sue you,"--if any man is about to sue you for your coat, let him have your cloak rather than go into court. Surely this would effectually cut you off from suing your brother.
But there is other scripture equally direct and strong. "Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or know you not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then you have to judge things pertaining to this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the church? I say this to move you to shame. Is it so, that there cannot be found among you one wise man, who shall be able to decide between his brethren, But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?" (1 Corinthians 6:1-7,RV)
You had better read this Scriptures several times, before you hastily conclude that it sanctions going to law, but not before unbelievers. If a Christian did go to law, but not before unbelievers, he would have to go before the church, and that would show that the church had usurped the functions of the civil power. But let us study the text closely. Note the first word. "Dare any of you go to law?" (1 Corinthians 6:1,RV)
It is certainly no light matter, or the word "dare" would not be used. The Greek word signifies, to have boldness, the effrontery. According to this it is great presumption for a Christians to go to law.
The saints are to judge the world and angels; certainly, then, they ought to be able to decide matters pertaining to this life. Who ought to be able to decide? Why, everybody who is to have a share in judging angels. Do you not see that this shuts out even arbitration in the church? for if all the saints (and all in the church are supposed to be, and ought to be, saints) are capable of judging in the affairs of their neighbors, they are certainly able to settle their own affairs, without bringing them before anybody else. For one to demand a trial before his brother, to settle the question, whether by arbitration or any other means, is to stand self-confessed as unfit for the world to come; and in that case one certainly has a greater and more important duty than trying to secure ones "rights."
Christ has left us an example in this respect. He not only committed His own case "to Him that judges righteously," (1 Peter 2:23) but He refused to interfere in strife. When on one occasion, "One of the company said unto Him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me," (Luke 12:13) Jesus replied, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" (Luke 12:14)
And then, in order, to discourage such sordid pursuits as striving after gain, and seeking to get one's due, He added, "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses." (Luke 12:15)
Christ refused to be a judge in worldly affairs, because His kingdom is not of this world. When He comes in His kingdom, He will sit on the throne judging righteously, and then the saints will be called to their work of judging. So as He refused to judge earthly affairs when on earth, we are exhorted to "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come." (1 Corinthians 4:5)
So if there is a dispute between two brethren in the church, and the dispute is referred to another person, or to the church, the duty of that other person, or of the church, is not to interfere in the case, and decide the question at issue, but to help the disputants to get converted, so that they will have the Spirit of Christ to settle all difficulties, or rather, to prevent them.
The dispute which would demand for arbitration indicates such a defect in the character of the ones demanding it as should lead them seriously to consider their prospects for the next world, rather than press their claims for the things of this world. This is just what the text says: "It is altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another." (1 Corinthians 6:7,RV)
The word here rendered "lawsuits" means not only the actual suit, but the case to be decided. It means a question, a matter for judgment. The "defect," and this is also a strong term,--the weakness, the lack,--is that there are judgments in the church--that brethren ever have any cases for arbitration. But it may be asked, "What if one in the church is really dishonest, and will not pay his just debts?"
Of course that is a great fault; but the defect becomes equal if the other brother begins an action against him to recover the debt. "Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?" (1 Corinthians 6:7,RV)
And this reminds me of the advice given by Commissioner Kerr, one of the leading London magistrates, who died a few days ago at the age of eighty-one. It is said that "He had fewer judgments reversed than any other judge in the metropolis," so it is evident that when he gave an opinion he knew what he was talking about. And here is his advice about going to law: "Never go to law under any consideration. You had much better lose your money than go to law."
Thus it appears that there is sound legal wisdom in the Scripture admonition against going to law. There is more money lost than gained by it. More money is put into courts by litigants than is taken away by them.
That perfect justice cannot possibly be obtained in any human court, is plainly indicated in the statement concerning Christ. He shall be, by the seven-fold Spirit on Him, "of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, nor reproved after the hearing of His ears: But with righteousness shall He judge the poor." (Isaiah 11:3-4)
Men have no means of judging except by the hearing of the ears and the sight of the eyes; therefore their judgment, even at the best, cannot be according to righteousness. It is necessary to have judges on this earth for a certain class of persons; but God's people will commit their cases "to Him that judges righteously." (1 Peter 2:23) "But it is not a personal matter with me," you say; "if it were, it would be easily disposed of; but the work in which I am engaged is a branch of the Lord's work, and it seems as though His cause ought to have all that is due it."
Now let me tell you that the Lord is as able to take care of His own money as He is to care for yours. All the money in the world is His anyhow, no matter in whose hands it is. Do you think that the Lord will require you to do for Him that which He has forbidden you to do for yourself. If He were now in your place, carrying on His own work personally, do you think He would go to law to recover a debt? Would He violate His own precepts? You know that He would not, and therefore you may know that He will not ask you to do for Him what He would not do for himself.
"But did not God himself command that judges should be appointed for ancient Israel, who worked to decide the small cases, and bring the difficult ones to Moses, for him to settle?"
He certainly did, and many other things He had done because of the hardness of their hearts. Israel was God's church, "called out" of Egypt, (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15) that each person might be a king and priest for the rest of the world, (Exodus 19:6) by virtue of His Spirit in them. The necessity for judges among them, therefore, indicated the "defect" of which the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, a lack of connection with God, in reality, a falling away, an apostasy.
That which was said of old, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:16-21) was said to the judges, as a guide to them in their decisions. And here we see a provision to minimize the evil results of the working of perverse human nature. The natural impulse when one is struck is to strike back, to give "as good as is sent;" but the appointment of judges took this out of the hands of private individuals.
Thus the courts were largely in those days what they are now--a public means for the gratification of private revenge. Even Christians, who would not think of resenting an injury, by personal violence, seem to think that this is all right if they pay somebody to inflict punishment, who has been appointed for that purpose.
I am not decrying the existence of courts of law. They are an absolute necessity in this evil world. As long as people wish that anybody who has injured them shall be punished, and as long as people are intent on securing their "rights," so long will courts be a necessity. It is better that "justice" be administered by a disinterested party than by the aggrieved one.
But when we Christians attempt to justify ourselves in making use of courts of law, on the ground that they are a necessity in the present state of the world, we identify ourselves with the world's present state, which is not at all flattering to our Christianity. It is astonishing how much Christians today are inclined to take advantage of provisions made long ago as a concession to the hardness of the hearts of the people just come from heathenism. It shows the hold that heathenism still has on the Christian world.
Of course the objection will be raised, "If it were known that we would not defend ourselves, nor assert our rights, people would take advantage of us, and we should lose everything we have."
Well, there is the word of the Lord, and if we should present our objections to Him, He would doubtless say, "What is that to you? follow me." (John 21:22)
Love, which is the fulfilling of the law, (Romans 13:10) "seeks not her own." (1 Corinthians 13:5)
But, "Seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:33)
Our sole business in this world is to obey God, and to glorify Him; He has charged himself with the responsibility of supplying all our needs; and He has riches enough in glory with which to do it. God's precepts are for us, and not against us. He has not forbidden us to go to law, in order to make our way difficult, but in order to save us trouble.
The question resolves itself into this:
• Shall we defend ourselves? or shall we leave our defense with God?
• Shall we appeal to man for help? or shall we seek help from God alone, who made heaven and earth, (Psalm 121:2) and to whom the earth belongs (Psalm 24:1)?
Which shall it be?--Present Truth, December 11, 1902.