I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
Read Chapter 6
Ambrosiaster
AD 400
Paul meant that they were so unmanageable and thoughtless that they might choose inexperienced brothers as judges. There must, he said, be some people in the church wise enough to judge such cases, and they should be allowed to do so. He said this, incidentally, because at that time there was no official leader in their church. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.
Is it so that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? This is severe irony, and a tacit reproof and condemnation. Sedulius and Gregory (Mor. lib. xix. c21) take it a little differently, as if said seriously, as though he meant: Let those who are of lesser merit in the Church, and who have no great gifts of power, judge in matters of worldly business, that so those who cannot do great things may be the means of supplying lesser benefits.
This judging of secular causes was afterwards intrusted amongst Christians to the presbyters and Bishops, as appears from Clement (Constit. lib. i. c49-51 , and Ep. i. to James the Lord"s brother). He says: "If brethren have any dispute let them not take it for decision before secular magistrates, but, whatever it Isaiah , let it be ended by the presbyters of the Church, and let their decision be implicitly obeyed." "This too was afterwards decreed in the civil law by the Emperor Theodosius, and ...
But this I say to move you to shame. These are the words of one exposing their objection as being an idle pretext: and therefore he adds, Is it so that there is not a wise man among you, no not even one? Is the scarcity, says he, so great? So great the want of sensible persons among you? And what he subjoins strikes even still harder. For having said, Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one? he adds, who shall be able to judge in the case of his brother. For when brother goes to law with brother, there is never any need of understanding and talent in the person who is mediating in the cause, the feeling and relationship contributing greatly to the settlement of such a quarrel.
But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers. Do you observe with what effect he disparaged the judges at first by calling them unrighteous; whereas here, to move shame, he calls them Unbelievers? For surely it is extremely disgraceful if the priest could not be the ...
