Thomas Aquinas

After the Apostle rebuked the Corinthians for going to law before unbelieving judges, he here rebukes them concerning the judgments themselves. And about this he does two things. First he sets down in what they were sinning concerning judgments; second he makes plain what he had said, at the words *or do you not know*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he rebukes in them, concerning judgments, that which is lawful but not expedient; second, that which is altogether unlawful, at the words *but you*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the rebuke; second he removes the excuse, at the words *why do you not rather*, etc. He says therefore first: it was said, that brother goes to law with brother, that it is not only evil that you contend before unbelievers, but *now indeed*, after your conversion, it is altogether *a fault among you*, that is, it is reckoned to you as a fault, *that you have lawsuits with one another*, among whom, that is, there ought to be peace: because, as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:24, *the servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all*. It appears, however, from this, as the Gloss of Augustine says here, that it is a sin to have a lawsuit against anyone; but this seems to be false: because if it is a sin to have a lawsuit, it seems to follow that it is likewise a sin to appoint judges, since this would be to give occasion to those who have lawsuits, whereas it is said in Deut. 1:16: *hear them, and judge what is just*, and afterward it is added, *because it is the judgment of God*. This is resolved in the Gloss: that it is permitted to the weak to seek back their own goods in a lawsuit, but not to the perfect: to whom it is permitted to seek their own goods, but not in a lawsuit. Now here it must be known that a certain thing is unlawful to the perfect, and a certain thing to all. The perfect indeed have no property of their own, according to Matt. 19:21: *if you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow me*; and therefore it is not lawful for them to seek things back in a lawsuit as their own, since it is not lawful for them to have anything as their own, though it is lawful for them to seek back in a lawsuit those things which are common. For in doing this they do not sin, but rather merit. For it is a work of charity to defend or recover the goods of the poor, according to Ps. 81:4: *rescue the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner*. But a lawsuit against someone is unlawful to all as regards three things. First indeed as regards the cause from which someone has a lawsuit, namely from cupidity and avarice. Whence, in Luke 12:13, when a certain man from the crowd had said to the Lord: *tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me*, the Lord said: *who has appointed me a judge to divide between you?* Afterward he adds: *see and beware of all covetousness*. Second, as regards the manner of the lawsuit, namely because they pursue the lawsuit with contention and to the detriment of peace; for as it is said in James 3:16, *where there is envy and contention, there is instability and every evil work*. And this the Apostle appears to rebuke in them, as is clear from what he said above: *brother goes to law with brother*. Third, from the perversity of the judgment, as when someone proceeds unjustly and fraudulently in a lawsuit, according to Is. 10:2: *that they might oppress the poor, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people*. And this too the Apostle rebukes in them, as is clear from what he adds: *but you do injury*. Fourth, on account of the scandal that follows. Whence the Lord also commands, in Matt. 5:40: *he who wishes to contend with you at law, and take away your tunic, let go to him your cloak also*. From charity, however, it is lawful to seek back one's own goods in a lawsuit. Whence Gregory says in the Morals: *when necessity imposes on us care of goods, some, while they seek them back, are only to be tolerated: some, however, while charity is preserved, are to be prevented*, namely lest, seizing what is not their own, they destroy themselves. Then when he says *why do you not rather*, etc., he removes the excuse. For they could say: necessity leads us to have lawsuits, namely so that we may resist the injuries and frauds of others; but he excludes this, adding, as regards the first, *why do you not rather accept injury*, namely manifest injury, that is, by patiently enduring it, according to what the Lord says, Matt. 5:39: *if anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other also*. But as regards the second he adds *why do you not rather suffer fraud*, that is, deceitful seduction, according to Matt. 5:41: *if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two more*. But, as Augustine says in the book On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount, these precepts of the Lord are not always to be observed in the execution of the deed, but are always to be held in the preparation of the mind, namely that we be ready rather to do or endure this, than to do anything against fraternal charity. Then when he says *but you*, etc., he rebukes in them that which is altogether unlawful. And first he charges them with manifest injustice, when he says *but you do injury*, namely by speaking manifestly against the justice of others, either in a lawsuit or outside a lawsuit. Ecclus. 9:17: *let not the injury of the unjust be pleasing to you*. Second, deceitful deception, when he adds *and you defraud*, Prov. 12:5: *the counsels of the wicked are deceitful*. Third, he aggravates both, when he adds *and this to brothers*, that is, to the faithful, to whom we ought most of all to do good, according to Gal. ult.: *while we have time, let us work good to all; but especially to those of the household of the faith*. And therefore against certain ones it is said in Jer. 9:4: *every brother will utterly supplant, and every friend will walk deceitfully*. Then, when he says *or do you not know*, etc., he makes plain what he had said. And first, as regards that which is altogether unlawful; second, as regards that which is lawful but not expedient, at the words *all things are lawful for me*. Concerning the first he does two things. First he raises the question; second he settles it, at the words *do not err*, etc. He says therefore first: I said that you do injury, and defraud, which is to commit iniquity, but *do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God*? As if to say: you seem not to know this, since you do not depart from iniquity, whereas nevertheless it is said in Ps. 6:9 and Matt. 7:23: *depart from me, all you who work iniquity*. Then, when he says *do not err*, etc., he settles the truth. And first he shows the danger that threatens the unjust; second he shows how they themselves escaped this danger, so that they might fear to fall into it again, at the words *and this indeed you were once*, etc. He says therefore first: *do not err*, which he says pointedly, because concerning the impunity of sins some erred in many ways, according to Wis. 2:21: *and they thought, and they erred*. For some philosophers erred, believing that God has no care of human affairs, according to Zeph. 1:12: *the Lord will not do good, and he will not do evil*. Some, however, believing that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, according to John 11:26: *he who believes in me shall not die forever*. Some, however, believing that they are saved through the sacraments of Christ alone, on account of what is said in Mark ult.: *he who believes and is baptized shall be saved*, and John 6:55: *he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life*. Some, however, on account of works of mercy alone, think that they sin with impunity, on account of what is said in Luke 11:41: *give alms, and behold all things are clean for you*. Nor do they understand that all these things without charity do not profit, according to what is said below in 13:2 ff.: *if I have all faith, and distribute all my goods to feed the poor, but have not charity, it profits me nothing*. And therefore he adds that sins contrary to charity exclude from the kingdom of God, into which charity alone introduces, saying *neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers* (of whom it is said in Heb. ult.: *fornicators and adulterers God will judge*), *nor the effeminate*, that is, men suffering womanish things, *nor those who lie with males*, as regards those acting in that vice, of whom it is said in Gen. 13:13: *the men of Sodom were most wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly*, *nor the covetous, nor thieves* (of whom it is said in Zech. 5:3: *every thief, as it is written, shall be judged*), *nor the drunken, nor the reviling, nor the rapacious shall possess the kingdom of God*. For it is said in Is. 35:8: *it shall be called the holy way, the unclean shall not pass through it*. And Apoc. 21:27: *nothing defiled, or that works abomination, shall enter into it*. And it is to be noted that here he enumerates the same vices which he had set down in the preceding chapter. He adds, however, certain ones under the genus of lust, namely adultery and the vice against nature, and under the genus of injustice, theft. Then, when he says *and these indeed*, etc., he shows how they escaped the aforesaid danger. And first he recalls their past state, saying *and indeed you were once*, namely fornicators and serving idols, etc., and therefore he specially recalls these vices, because they had abounded in them, according to Eph. 5:8: *for you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord*. Second he shows how they were inwardly freed from these, saying *but you are washed*, namely by the power of the blood of Christ in Baptism, according to Apoc. 1:5: *he washed us from our sins in his own blood*. But *you are sanctified*, consecrated by grace through the power of the blood of Christ, according to Heb. ult.: *Jesus, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate*. But *you are justified*, unto the state of justice and virtue, according to Rom. 8:30: *whom he called, these he also justified*. The cause of these benefits, however, is added. And first on the part of the humanity of Christ, when he says *in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ*, that is, in faith and invocation of the name of Christ, according to Acts 4:12: *there is no other name given under heaven to men, in which we must be saved*. Second on the part of the divinity, when he adds *and in the Spirit of our God*, according to Ezek. 37:5: *behold I will send into you the spirit, and you shall live*. Because therefore you have been freed by so powerful a power, you ought not to return to the same things.

Then, when he says *all things are lawful for me*, etc., he makes plain what he had said about the prohibition of judgment, showing in what sense he rebuked it, namely that he did not rebuke it as altogether unlawful, but as inexpedient and harmful. And about this he does two things. First he proposes what he intends; second he assigns the reason, at the words *food for the belly*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he proposes what he had rebuked as being lawful, but not expedient, saying *all things are lawful for me*. Now those things are called lawful which a man is not prohibited from doing; but prohibition is twofold, one of coercion, the other of precept, and according to this some have understood that those things are lawful which are not forbidden by any compelling necessity; and therefore, since the free choice of man is by nature free from coercion, they understood the Apostle to say in this sense: *all things are lawful for me*, namely because they are subject to the free choice of man, whether they be good or whether they be evil, according to Ecclus. 15:18: *before man is good and evil, life and death, whatever he shall choose shall be given to him*. But this manner of speaking is foreign to sacred Scripture, in which it is said that those things are not lawful which are forbidden by divine law, according to Matt. 14:4: *it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife*. And therefore what the Apostle here says, *all things are lawful for me*, cannot be understood absolutely, but is to be taken as a fitting distribution under this sense: all things are lawful for me, namely those which are not forbidden by divine law. And this can be referred to three things: first indeed to what he had said about lawsuits, namely that it is lawful for each one to seek back all his own goods in a lawsuit, since this is not forbidden by divine law. In another way it can be referred to what he is about to say below in 8:8 about the indifferent use of foods, so that the sense is: it is lawful for me to eat all foods, according to Titus 1:15: *all things are clean to the clean*. Third it can be referred to what he is about to say below in 9:4 ff., about receiving expenses, so that the sense is: *all things are lawful for me*, namely to receive for the necessity of life, just as to my fellow apostles. He adds, however, *but not all things are expedient*. Now that is said to be expedient which is without impediment to the attaining of the end. But it happens that something does not totally exclude the end, yet brings some impediment, just as marriage does not exclude a man from the kingdom of God, yet it brings an impediment, because, namely, as he says below in 7:34, *the woman who is under a husband thinks how she may please her husband*. Whence, in Matt. 19:10, the disciples say: *if the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry*. Thus therefore to fornicate is neither lawful nor expedient, because it totally excludes the end, which is eternal life; but marriage is lawful, but not expedient. According, therefore, to this manner, to seek back one's own goods in a lawsuit, to use all foods indifferently, to receive expenses from those to whom one preaches, is indeed lawful, because it is not against justice, nor is it forbidden by any law; yet it is not expedient, either because peace toward one's neighbor is impeded, or some scandal is generated for the weak, or some occasion of reviling is afforded; whence Ecclus. 37:31: *not all things are expedient for all*. In another way it can be understood not absolutely, but under a condition, so that the sense is: I said that neither fornicators, etc., will possess the kingdom of God, and therefore they are not lawful, because they exclude the end; but if all things were lawful for me, not all things are expedient, because through them an impediment is afforded to human life. Whence in the person of the wicked it is said in Wis. 5:7: *we were wearied in the way of iniquity and perdition, and we walked difficult ways*. Second he shows that what he rebuked above is harmful, saying *all things are lawful for me*, as was explained above, *but I will not be brought under the power of any*, namely of man. For he who uses that which is not expedient, whether lawful or unlawful, is in a certain way brought under the power of some thing, or of some man. Of a thing indeed, because he who loves some thing too much becomes in a certain way the slave of that thing, according to Rom. ult.: *such as these do not serve Christ the Lord, but their own belly*. But of a man, because while someone does what is not expedient, he is in a certain way subjected to the judgment of others, and especially he who seeks back his own goods in a lawsuit is subjected to the power of a judge. Below in 10:29: *for why is my liberty judged by another's conscience?* Then, when he says *food for the belly*, etc., he assigns the reason for what he had said. And first why all things are lawful, saying *food for the belly*, namely is owed, so that, namely, being digested in the belly, it may pass into nourishment for the whole body. *And the belly for foods*, namely it serves for receiving and digesting them. Since, therefore, by God's ordination the belly is intent on receiving foods, and foods are appointed for this, that they be placed in the belly, according to Gen. 1:29 f.: *behold I have given you every food, and to all living things, that they may have it to eat*, it is not unlawful that a man seek back his own goods, or that a preacher receive wages on account of the necessity of food, or even that a man use all foods. Second, at the words *but God*, etc., he assigns the reason why not all things are expedient. For it is not expedient that a man suffer any detriment in that which is never corrupted, namely in the heavenly kingdom, on account of that which is corrupted; and this happens with food and the belly. For after this life the use of foods and of the belly will cease, because the bodies of those rising again will be preserved without food, God bringing this about. And this is what he means: *but God will destroy*, that is, will cause to cease, *this*, namely the belly, not indeed as regards its essence, but as regards the effect which it now has; *and these*, namely foods, as far as they pertain to man's use, because in the resurrection men will be like the Angels in heaven, as it is said in Matt. 22:30.