The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
This passage, however, does not favour the Anabaptists, who hold that it means that all judicial power should be taken from the magistrates. For (1.) as Chrysostom says, the Apostle is not condemning the existence of law-courts, but the impatience of the litigants. (2.) He censures them for inflicting injury on their fellow-Christians (ver. 8); (3.) for going for judgment on these matters before the unbelievers and the unjust; (4.) for oppressing the poor among them wrongfully; (5.) for so scandalously disturbing peace, which is the bond of charity, and thus injuring the faith itself. Cajetan adds that one or other of the parties must always be in the wrong, because one or other favours an unjust cause, unless he can be excused through ignorance. Wherefore S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 78) says that even lawsuits that are just can hardly be entered into without sin, at all events venial sin, because they generally proceed from a too great love of worldly things, and can scarcely be free from the danger of hatred, ill-will, and injurious dealing. There is added to this loss of time, of peace, and internal tranquillity, which cannot be compensated for except by a still greater good, and therefore even suits that have justice on their side are not undertaken without sin. Hence Christ, in S. Matt. v. 40, enjoins : “ If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” A greater good is the necessity of one's self, of the public, of one's family, godliness, or the obligations of justice, as when you determine to protect or recover the goods of a monastery, or of the poor, by the public law-courts . So Paul appealed to Caesar's judgment-seat (Acts xxv. 11).
In fine, the Apostle is not here blaming judging on the part of the judge, but only on the part of the suitors. And so, even if it were sin to go to law, it would not be sin to pass judgment ; for judgments put an end to suits, which is altogether a good thing. S.
Clement of Rome supports in this S. Paul, his master and contemporary (Constit. Apost. lib. ii. c. 45), in the words: “It is the beautiful boast of a Christian that he goes to law with no one. But if by the doing of others, or by any temptation, it come to pass that he is entangled in a lawsuit, he does all he can to put an end to it, although he have thereby to suffer loss, and to prevent himself from having to appear before the heathen's judgment- seat. Nay, do not suffer secular magistrates to decide in your causes, for by them the devil endeavours to bring the servants of God into reproach, by making it appear that you have no wise man to do justice between you , or to put an end to controversy .”
Vers. 9, 10. — Neither fornicators nor adulterers, &c. . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God. Hence it appears that not only adultery
but also fornication, by which an unmarried man sins with an unmarried woman, is against the law of Christ and of nature. Rabbi Moses Ægypt. erred shamefully in this respect ( More , lib. iii. c.
50) when he excused the intercourse of Judah with Tamar, related in Gen. xxxviii., on the ground that before the law of Moses whoredom was allowable. Our politicians err still more shamefully who, while allowing that fornication is forbidden by the law of Christ, yet deny that it was forbidden by the law of Moses. For Moses includes it, as do the Rabbins always, in Exod. xx., under the sixth commandment , “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” under which not only adultery, but also incest, sodomy, fornication, and all kinds of sexual intercourse and lust outside the limits of matrimony are forbidden. So Tobias (iv. 13) says: “Keep thyself, my son, from all fornication.”
So the Apostle here reckons fornication with adultery, idolatry, and other sins which are against the law of nature and of the Decalogue , and naturally shut out men from the kingdom of heaven.
For fornication is at variance with the first creation of man, and with the institution of matrimony, by which the God of nature and the Lord of all things has tied the use of those members which serve for generation to matrimony ; and outside that He has taken away all permission to use them. It is opposed also to conjugal fidelity, and to the good of the offspring, who cannot be properly brought up in fornication, but only in matrimony. Hence Deut.
xxii. 21 orders a maiden to be stoned who before marriage has committed fornication in her father’s house. And the Wise Man says
(Ecclus. xix. 3): “ He who joins himself to fornication shall be vile.”
Lastly, to pass over other instances, 24,000 of the Israelites were killed for committing fornication with the daughters of Moab.
Effeminate, Those guilty of self-pollution.
Covetous, Those who by fraud, unfair contracts, and legal quibbles get possession of the goods of others. They are distinct from thieves and robbers. Cf. note to ver. 10.
Drunkards, The Greek word here stands both for one that is drunk and one that is given to drink. Here it denotes rather the act than the habit, as the other words, thieves, revilers, adulterers, do; for one of such acts excludes from the kingdom of heaven.
Cf. Gal. v. 21. A single act of drunkenness, if it is perfected, is deadly sin, because it deprives a man of the use of his reason, and makes him like a beast, and exposes him to danger of broils, lust, and many other sins. S. Thomas says, however : “ Drunkenness is not a mortal sin if a man is ignorant of the strength of the wine or the weakness of his head.” This excuse, however, is rendered invalid by frequent experience; therefore the Apostle says significantly , “habitual drunkard,” not merely “drunkard.” But the former explanation is the sounder.
Ver. 11. — But ye are washed . . . by the Spirit of our God, Ye were justified in baptism by the Holy Spirit. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius. S. Cyprian gives a beautiful example of this washing and change of character, produced in his own case baptized into Christianity, in Ep. 2, to Donatus, in which he candidly confesses what sort of man he was before his baptism, what a sudden change passed over him through the grace of baptism, and what benefits Christianity conferred upon him, which, as he says, “ is the death of vices, the life of virtues.” Nazianzen ( Orat . Funebr . in Laudem S. Cypr .) says the same, and relates his wonderful conversion, and the change of heart and life which baptism wrought in him.
Ver. 12. — All things are lawful unto me , but all things are not expedient. All things, say Theodoret and Œcumenius, are through free-will lawful unto me, are in my power, e.g., to commit fornication , to rob, to be drunken, and all the other sins mentioned above. But they are not expedient for the salvation of my soul, inasmuch as they are sins.
But this rendering is rightly condemned by Ambrose, who says : “How can that be lawful which is forbidden? for surely if all things are lawful there can be nothing unlawful.” In other words he says that that is said to be lawful which no law forbids. The word lawful does not apply to that which it is in the power of the will to do or leave undone. The meaning, therefore, of this passage is, all indifferent things, all not forbidden by any law, are lawful to me. So
Chrysostom, who with Theophylact refers these words to the next verse.
Ver. 13. — Meats for the belly and the belly for meats. 1. Although it is lawful for me to eat of every kind of food, yet I will not allow desire for any food to get the mastery over me, and make me a slave to my belly.
2. Ambrose and S. Thomas understand these words to refer to his personal expenses, and to mean — Though it is lawful for me as a preacher of the Gospel to receive from you means of support, yet I will not receive it, lest I become chargeable to any one and lose my liberty. The Apostle after his manner joins together various disconnected matters, which he knew would be intelligible in other ways to those to whom he was writing.