To what extent should Christians allow themselves to be wronged?

     “Indeed, therefore, it is already a failure for you altogether, that you have lawsuits among one another. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be deprived?” (1 Cor. 6:7).¹ What is Paul admonishing his readers to do? To what extent should a Christian allow him/herself to be wronged?

     The church in mid-first-century Corinth was inconsistent in the extreme. In the case of an immoral brother in their midst, they should have made a reasoned judgment and implemented church discipline but took no action at all (1 Cor. 5:1-2). In cases of petty disputes, they should have judged among themselves but took too much action and went to pagan courts (6:1-9). In both cases, they neglected their God-given responsibility to make their own judgments and settle matters among themselves (cf. 5:11-12). In the latter case, they were airing the church’s dirty laundry in public and bringing reproach upon the church.

     In the opening verses of chap. 6, Paul is not addressing criminal or sinful behavior but petty disputes that left the church susceptible to unnecessary ridicule from outsiders. While the verb aposteréō is rendered “cheat” or “defraud” in many English translations, in the very next chapter it is used in the sense of “deprive” (7:5). Paul is addressing the selfish and arrogant attitudes of those demanding their perceived “rights” at the expense of fellow believers (cf. 4:6, 18, 19; 5:2; 8:1; etc.). This is in stark contrast to the noble conduct of the apostles (4:12-13), the opposite of selfless concern for others (8:13; 10:24), and contrary to Christian love (13:5). God’s design for the church is not a utopian environment void of conflict but a place where inevitable disputes are resolved through love (cf. 8:1; 16:14).

     The key is what’s in the best interest of others. Paul affirms that it would be better to suffer personal wrong than to damage the reputation of the church (1 Cor. 6:7-8; 10:24). This does not suggest, however, that anyone should simply allow him/herself to be victimized, which would ultimately benefit neither the victim nor the offender (cf. Phil. 2:4). Nor does it suggest it is inappropriate to avail oneself of basic human rights (cf. Acts 25:10-12).
     If, for example, a brother in Christ embezzles funds from my bank account, to say and do nothing would be contrary to Christian principles. Sin cannot be tolerated in the church (1 Cor. 5:7; 15:33), it would hamper my God-given responsibility to give to the Lord’s work and provide for my family (1 Cor. 16:2; 1 Tim. 5:8), and the brother’s soul is jeopardized (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20). If, however, my brother merely says something in anger that hurts my feelings, then hiring a lawyer and suing for defamation and psychological distress is not a Christ-like response. Between these extremes are plethoric scenarios that may require the collective wisdom of the church to help discern what is necessary for appropriate resolution (cf. 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 1 Tim. 5:20).

     Followers of Jesus have been “sanctified,” i.e., set apart from the sinful world in their thinking and behavior.² Christians are expected to refrain from retaliation (Matt. 5:38-48; Rom. 12:17-21; 1 Thess. 5:15) and be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18). The point of 1 Cor. 6:1-11, which is an extension of chap. 5, is that discord in the church is to be addressed from within (cf. Matt. 18:15-20; 2 Thess. 3:6-15).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Note “saints” [hagioi] (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1, 2; 14:33; 16:1, 15) = “sanctified ones” or “holy ones” (cf. 1:2; 3:17; 6:11).

Related Posts: The Saints will judge the World and Angels

Image credit: http://churchofchristarticles.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/prayer-man.jpg

Jude 9: Why argue over the body of Moses?

     Jude’s initial intent in writing his letter was to convey a positive message about “our common salvation” (v. 3a). But his focus abruptly switches to the urgency of his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith” in view of the intrusion of ungodly men who had secretly “crept in” among them (vv. 3b-4).¹ In v. 8 he describes these intruders as “dreamers” [void of spiritual substance] who “defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.” To reinforce and illustrate the indictment, he writes in v. 9, “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” The point Jude makes is that evil men ignorantly reject and ridicule authority, while in so doing reveal their own corruption (v. 10).

     The question is, what’s this about the dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses? This is the only biblical passage that speaks of this incident. It is commonly alleged that Jude’s account is based on a pseudepigraphical work, namely the Assumption of Moses (a.k.a. the Testament of Moses). However, Jude does not attribute his information to any particular source. The Assumption of Moses is of uncertain date and authorship, and the only extant portion of it is a sixth-century AD fragmentary Latin manuscript. Since no surviving portion of this work contains the passage in question, and since similar words are found in Zechariah 3:1-2, the element of divine revelation notwithstanding, it is just as likely that the material came from a common source or tradition rather than having been the result of literary dependency.²

     Seeing that Jude provides no further details, no definitive conclusions can be reached, although various suggestions have been made. Nothing is said about the timing of the event. One proposal is that the contention concerned baby Moses (Ex. 1:16) and maybe the devil wanted to destroy or corrupt this future leader of God’s people. Another possibility is that “the body of Moses” is to be understood in a corporate sense as the OT parallel of “the body of Christ”; i.e., the collectivity [body] of people following Moses whom the devil was against (see Zech. 3:2; cp. Acts 15:21; 1 Cor. 3:15).

     The most popular suggestion is that Moses’ corpse was the center of the dispute (Deut. 34:6). Perhaps the devil questioned his right to a proper burial, or wanted to desecrate the body or reveal the burial site to tempt people to idolize the tomb or the remains and draw honor away from God.

     The bottom line is, we don’t know. And seeing that no further details are revealed in scripture, this is apparently something we don’t need to know. The point Jude makes is clear enough without having to satisfy our curiosity.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Scripture quotations are from the NKJV. 

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Jude’s Alleged Use of Pseudonymous Sources,” <Link>.

Related Posts: K. L. Moore, “The NT Epistle of Judas,” <Link>.

Image credit: http://chemistry.csudh.edu/faculty/jim/AAAcozaug05/stmichael02.jpg