“If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.” (Matt. 5:40)
Being sued. What does this passage say to those who are being sued? Does it say that a person who is sued must deliver over to the plaintiff everything that he has been sued for? Why does this passage refer to “tunics and cloaks” and not to money? In Old Testament times and in New Testament times there were legal procedures for obtaining money judgements for owed debts. How could the passage refer to any man, without distinction as to whether that man may or may not be entitled to a recovery? If the reference is to anyone who wishes to sue, then even those who are not entitled to recover are included, but reason would dictate that the passage refers only to plaintiffs who have a just claim. Why, then, do the words seem to differ from what must be the meaning of this passage? The answer to these questions lies in the historical use and application of the coat and the cloak.
Clothing, in relation to debts, is legally significant in the Old Testament, and also the New Testament. In Old Testament times, a man’s coat or cloak was the last thing (before himself or his children) that he would sell or pledge to borrow money to survive. Because the pledge of clothing affected the most basic articles for survival, the law limited what a creditor could do to take it in satisfaction for a debt. For instance, the creditor could not go into the house of the debtor and forcibly seize the article of pledge (Deut. 24:10, 11). The same is basically true today.1 If the debtor had pledged his clothing, the creditor would have to return it to him each evening so he would have something warm to sleep in (Deut. 24:12, 13; Exod. 22:26, 27).2 Christ’s reference to the coat or cloak does not imply unlimited license to any conceivable legal demand on someone but to the returning of articles that have been pledged to creditors who have not been paid. It is, therefore, not a command to pay money that is not legally owed, but refers to debts from loans that are actually owed. Therefore, the Christian is perfectly free to raise any honest and legal defense in the event that he has been sued.
If the passage refers to the payment of pledges after the release of debt, Deuteronomy 15 then is also a clear statement that a lien should survive a discharge of the debt in bankruptcy, which is basically the case today.
Suing others. Is it righteous for a Christian to sue another Christian when he has been wronged? The apostle Paul speaks directly to this issue: “Now, therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another.Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:7).
This is a difficult saying, but there are many difficult sayings in the Bible, and their difficulty does not render them unsaid. When this saying is viewed in the light of other doctrine and in the light of present law, however, it becomes more understandable but no less difficult.
Forgiveness is a critical element throughout the Scriptures, and it is God’s desire for forgiveness and harmony among believers that forms the basis of this saying by Paul. Paul is clearly concerned here with the inherent contradiction between lawsuits and forgiveness. And Christ made it clear that there is a close relationship between forgiveness of debts and the forgiveness of sin (Matt. 18:22–35).
In the parable of the unjust steward, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who was moved to compassion and forgave his steward the money debt that was owed to him by the steward. The forgiven steward then demanded full payment from another steward. Christ calls the forgiven steward who failed to forgive his debtor a wicked servant: “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?” (Matt. 18:32, 33).
Of course, we must remember that this is only a parable, and it does not state directly that a failure to forgive a money debt is sin. As a parable, it simply uses the example of the forgiveness of a money debt as an illustration of the forgiveness of sin.
However, the Greek word which is translated “debt” in this passage is the same word which is likewise translated “debt” or sin in the Lord’s prayer. This underscores the close parallel between God’s forgiveness of sins and the forgiveness of debts: “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12).
Although the primary meaning of the Greek word refers to money debts, some translations use the word as “sins” or “trespasses.” However, if the meaning of this word were limited to sins and did not include debts also, it would be hard to understand why a different and more precise word for “sins” (and not “debts”) is used only two verses later (in Matt. 6:14) in the same Lord’s prayer to refer to sins and trespasses and not to money debts. The parallel passage in Luke 11:4 uses a different word that means only “sin.” We can conclude that the word in Matthew 6:12 may be read in either way but that it will at least connote the forgiveness of money debts.
Lawsuits that demand money judgements are, therefore, by their nature the antithesis of forgiveness. It seems clear that we cannot forgive and sue at the same time. This results in an apparent theological conflict that must be resolved. It is unrighteous for a man not to pay his debts if he can reasonably do so (Ps. 37:21; Matt. 5:40), but it is likewise unrighteous for a creditor to try to exact payment from someone who cannot pay.3 The resolution of this apparent conflict lies in the fact that not all debt needs to be forgiven. The scriptural ideal is a creditor who has rendered a valid service or made a fair sale and a debtor who is willing and ultimately able to pay in full. This debt need never be forgiven.
The trouble arises when the creditor has not rendered a valid service or made a fair sale but still wishes to be paid in full for it, or when the creditor has rendered a valid service or made a fair sale but the debtor refuses to pay. Situations like these are unjust and have the makings of lawsuits. It is situations like these, however, that Paul addresses when he admonishes with regard to Christians suing Christians: “Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?” Paul is saying that the harm done by the lawsuit against a fellow Christian may do such harm that it would have been better to be harmed in a lesser way by being cheated or defrauded. Trials usually have no winners. They are arduous tasks that tax the energies and emotions of the persons involved. Even what is won may not be worth the loss of repuation for the individual and Christ’s kingdom.
The bitterness and contention generated by Christians attempting to take money from one another do more harm to God’s purposes than the enforcement of manmade justice. Nowhere are we told to collect from our enemies, but we are told to forgive them and feed them (1 Cor. 6:6, 7).
Of course, many a lawsuit is fought more for the principle of the matter than for the money. But unfortunately the principle most often so adamantly championed is revenge, and that principle is best left to God.
Sometimes, however, the bone of contention in a lawsuit may not present any issue of forgiveness. The lawsuit may hinge on a totally impersonal legal question that requires a judge vested with the authority of the government to make a decision.
A lawsuit is the result either of one person failing to fulfill a legal obligation or of one person alleging that a nonexistent legal obligation actually exists, or a little of both. A lawsuit is a dispute as to who owes what. Numerous Old Testament laws address the issue of who owes what. These laws are meant to avoid disputes by defining in advance exactly who owes what—under what circumstances. Modern laws are written for the same reason. Old Testament and modern laws are meant not to cause lawsuits and disputes but to prevent them. Just because biblical passages or modern laws provide for the recovery of sums of money for certain reasons does not mean that in all instances that right should be enforced. Very little is said in the Bible about the enforcement of rights of recovery.
The ideal seen in Scripture is not a list of circumstances where the plaintiff is not required to forgive and may sue. The scriptural ideal is for every plaintiff to be ready and willing to forgive every defendant and for every defendant to be ready and willing to make whatever reparation to the plaintiff is righteous and reasonable and scriptural. The scriptural ideal is concord not discord, agreement and reconciliation not lawsuits.
Unfortunately, discord reigns in the courts, not concord. Discord likewise reigns in the business world. If the demands of righteousness require forgiveness in the face of a discordant business world, and if lawsuits, which are standard of the day, are an elemental part of good business practice, how can Christians in business protect themselves if they cannot sue? Can a Christian ever scripturally sue anyone, and if so, whom can he sue and whom can he not sue? Scripture states directly that lawsuits should not take place between or among Christians, even in a clear case of fraud and wrongdoing. If a defendant is not a Christian, however, then Paul’s admonition not to sue should not necessarily apply. Thus a lawsuit against a corporation would probably be unaffected by 1 Corinthians 6:7.4 Also, in the event of proper church discipline, a person may be dealt with as an unbeliever (Matt. 18:17, 18). This may well render such a person outside the scope of 1 Corinthians 6:6, 7. There is no specific scriptural admonition not to sue other persons or entities, such as governments. In determining to sue or not to sue, however, the Christian should keep in mind that just because a defendant is scripturally open to suit doesn’t mean that the Christian plaintiff is not at the same time called to forgive the defendant.5
For what should a Christian not sue? One of the most common lawsuits is a negligence action. Normally this involves suing someone for injuries. The injury that is the subject of the suit may be the result of a willful and wanton act or a grossly negligent act on the part of a defendant. Exodus 21 provides a biblical basis for recovery for personal injuries that are the direct result of willful or wanton actions, such as intentional injuries and blows to another person or, as specifically mentioned in that passage, injuries caused to a pregnant woman when two men fight each other. Other such willful or wanton actions mentioned in Scripture are situations where an owner of a notoriously dangerous ox permits the ox to have access to people and to injure them, or where a man digs a pit and leaves it open for someone to fall into. These are situations that the law today calls willful or wanton acts of gross negligence, and they can form the basis of recovery today as they did at the time of the law given by Moses. A more contemporary example of grossly neglectful conduct is a drunken driver.
There is, on the other hand, no scriptural basis for recovery against someone for a good-faith mistake. That is, if someone who acts entirely in good faith causes a loss to another person, then the person who suffers loss could not, under biblical law or principle, force the person who causes the loss to repay it. Today, however, most lawsuits are founded upon good-faith mistakes. Such a lawsuit is called a negligence action. The law of negligence says in effect that if one person, who acts in good faith and without any intention to harm anyone, injures another person, then he must pay for that injury. The crux of the difference between a lawsuit to recover for willful or wanton acts and a lawsuit for negligent acts is that where there is a willful or wanton act, the person causing the injury is consciously responsible for the resulting injury; but where there is a negligent act, the person causing the injury may do it without any conscious neglect or intention. Indeed, he may cause the injury while being as careful as he knows how to be. One reason that God has not provided for recovery based on a good-faith mistake is that he knows we are all imperfect. We all make mistakes. Why, therefore, should we hold ourselves to a standard of perfection that none of us can truly meet? However, with the institution of negligence laws our legal system makes each of us, within the scope of the application of those laws, the insurer of everyone with whom we come in contact. The result of these laws is that we insure the world that all of what we do will be without error, which is absurd.
A negligence action is founded on the presupposition that everyone is held to a standard of care of the “reasonable person.” The practical application when these lawsuits are tried, is that the reasonable person is one who never makes the mistake. Therefore, all the plaintiff need do is prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, that duty was broken by an error made by the defendant, and that an injury resulted.
Another common cause of action is a suit for a breach of contract. The Christian plaintiff in this suit should consider whether or not the breach is due to an intentional act or a good-faith mistake.
How can Christians avoid getting into situations that normally can be remedied only through lawsuits? One of the first answers to this is contained in 1 Corinthians 6:5, the passage that outlaws lawsuits among Christians. In this passage Paul asks, “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” Paul indicates here and in the following verse that the proper alternative is to provide for arbitration within the church. Arbitration is a method whereby disputes are settled by the parties agreeing in advance that some third party will make a decision and that they will abide by that decision. It is, in effect, the setting up of a “court” within the church or between people and agreeing in advance what power and authority that “court” will have. Most states have arbitration laws that are just as binding as the courts. A church or group of churches could take advantage of such laws and institute all of the necessary scriptural principles they felt were applicable. Arbitration has another clear advantage: It provides a forum for two parties who are at odds with one another to meet and discuss and come to an agreement. Forgiveness can take place within this context far more easily than when lawyers square off and the plaintiffs and the defendants meet head-on-head in the courtroom. The court system today could hardly be made less conducive to forgiveness and reconciliation than it already is. The parties don’t speak to each other, and the lawyers, who are interested only in the legal aspects of the case, battle it out for a fee. There is no reason why litigants could not retain counsel within the context of an arbitration. When honest people with honest lawyers act with the honest intention to achieve forgiveness, justice, and equity among themselves, then God will bless their transaction. The expense and the fees that could be saved with such a resolution could be enormous. Obviously if the parties and actions are not honest, results could be much different, and a trial may ensue.
Another alternative would be for Christians to locate a Christian judge and employ him or her to hear interchurch cases. It may be necessary to pass legislation to permit parties to the litigation to file their suit and agree on a specific judge to hear the case.
Another scriptural admonition which can be used to avoid a situation leading to a lawsuit is Christ’s admonition to his disciples in Matthew 10:16: “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Perhaps the first part of this verse, “Be as wise as serpents,” is more applicable. Christ suggests that we should be wise in avoiding situations that may result in disastrous consequences. For instance, we should be extremely careful in extending credit. We should get paid in advance or have a third party hold a sum of money to be paid upon completion of a task. We should be aware of all of the facts and aware of the debt structure of persons with whom we deal. We should structure business arrangements so that there is a minimum risk. The old adage that a contract is only as good as the person with whom we contract is true.
This discussion is not intended to offer a final conclusion on every lawsuit or potential lawsuit. It is meant only to be a general discussion on general biblical principles, and not all biblical references to lawsuits have been included. All of Scripture should be applied with care and wisdom to each situation, and each situation should be judged (in light of Scripture) on its own merits.
Monetary concepts in the Old Testament offer further insight into ways to avoid conflicts. For instance, as emphasized in chapter 17 on bankruptcy, Old Testament law systematically discouraged consumer loans and transformed them into gifts every seven years (Deut. 15:2). The scriptural admonition that the borrower is the lender’s slave can apply to lenders as well as borrowers.
God’s ideal was not vindication but forgiveness, not collection but charity, and not enforcement but wisdom. It is God who is the author of all good things (James 1:17), not lawyers.
quotation from :
H. Wayne House, Christian Ministries and the Law: Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 175–183.
No comments:
Post a Comment