03.07. On Giving Up Our Rights.

On Giving Up Our Rights.

1 Corinthians 9:18; 1 Corinthians 7:31. In two great passages the Apostle Paul deals with the Christian’s rights and his great privilege in not living up to them. The word Paul uses can be legitimately translated in somewhat different ways, and this has given rise to some discussion as to his meaning. In reality there should not be the slightest doubt, since the context makes the apostle’s intention quite clear. The word "katachraomai" is used only twice in the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 7:31 and 1 Corinthians 9:18. A reference to a Greek lexicon will show that the following two meanings are possible in the passages cited: (1) to use to the uttermost or to the full, to use up; (2) to misuse, misapply, abuse. In each passage the Common Version translates by "abuse," which word in older English meant (as did the Greek word it was employed to represent) either of the two things, to use to the full, or to misuse. Unfortunately, the ordinary reader today must from the 1611 version arrive at the conclusion that the apostle is warning against an evil use, rather than urging or illustrating restraint in the use of even legitimate things. The loss in this is great; for there is no doubt of Paul’s meaning. The Christian Preacher’s Rights. In 1 Corinthians 9:1-27 Paul revealed to the disciples that when he asked them, for the sake of their example and influence on others, to be willing to give up their rights, he was but requesting that they adopt a principle by which he himself lived. In very skilful fashion, he combined this with a defence of himself against certain foolish remarks or insinuations of brethren hostile to himself. They had said that Paul was not all apostle as Peter was, and they cited in proof the fact that Paul did not receive support from the church, but instead labored with his own hands. In verse 18, Paul tells of his reward in service:

"What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel" (Common Version).

Now, there are still to be found a few writers and speakers who, it may be charitably supposed, are ignorant of what has been noted as to the double meaning of "katachraomai" in Greek and of "abuse" in older English, and (what is less defensible) ignore the whole of Paul’s former reasoning in 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, and who, therefore, arrive at the astounding conclusion that Paul indicates that it would be wrong for a man to receive support in his work of preaching the Gospel. Than this, nothing could be more un-founded, or more out of harmony with the argument. When the would-be exegetes go further and denounce a "paid ministry and brand as "hirelings" all who are supported in the work of the Lord, they are guilty of such an offence as cannot wholly be excused by ignorance. The proven right. In the first part of the chapter, Paul proves his right to certain privileges. He was not behind Cephas and other apostles in the right to lead about a sister-wife. He and Barnabas, it is inferred, had all equal right with others to "forbear working." If some cynical objector should suggest, "Yes, equal right--for neither had any," he may be encouraged to read 1 Corinthians 9:7-14, where the absolute right to receive support is argued and declared.

First the apostle refers to human analogies. A soldier on campaign is not required to pay his own expenses. Planters of vineyards, and keepers of sheep, get a living out of their labor. The apostles and missionaries might be regarded as soldiers on service; they were planters of churches; they were shepherds of the flock--they were not bound to pay their own charges. But human analogies could not furnish a final proof. Hence the apostle refers to the law of God. In the Old Testament God had said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"--a principle which Paul implies was certainly not limited to the case of oxen, but which could be extended to the plougher and sower. In 1 Corinthians 9:11 Paul applies the right to those who sow spiritual things. Again, the law of the temple service was appealed to by the apostle. The priests and Levites had an acknowledged right to maintenance in connection with the temple and altar. Lastly, in one closing verse Paul raises the question above all reasoning from analogies, whether drawn from human practices or divine law. He makes the declaration: "Even so did the Lord ordain that they which proclaim the gospel should live of the Gospel." That settles the question for all who believe in the Lord Jesus and accept the authority of his inspired apostles. It also enables us definitely to decide as to the rendering of 1 Corinthians 9:18, that we must read it not of the abuse which is misuse, but of the using of a right to the full. The English and American Revised Versions and Rotherham’s translation all agree and make the meaning clear. The first of these reads as follows:- "What then is my reward? That, when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the Gospel."

Ere we pass on, it may be of interest to note that the help which he refused from the Corinthian church Paul was willing to receive from the brethren at Philippi (see Php 4:10-17). There must have been special reasons operating at Corinth--involving grave danger of misrepresentation and hindrance to the work--and these persisted, for in his second epistle to the Corinthian disciples the apostle declared his determination to adhere to the rule of not accepting anything from them (2 Corinthians 12:14).

Reasons for abstinence.

It is abundantly worth while to consider the noble example of the Apostle Paul. He enunciates a principle of self-abnegnation which we should adopt. We should be willing to give up our rights. Many a Christian worker has been helped by the apostle’s example, and has with noble self-sacrifice spent himself in service without receiving any pecuniary reward. Men who act thus are to he honored. There must, however, be no slighting of others who are not free or able to act in this way. The reasons which Paul gives for his abstinence are worthy of attention. F. W. Robertson in his Expository Lectures sums them up as follows: "In order to do his work in a free, princely, and not a slavish spirit, he was forced to preach the Gospel, and for the preaching of it no thanks were due. If he did it against his will, a dispensation of the Gospel was committed to him, and ’woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel!’ He was bound to do it. But he turned his necessity to glorious gain. That was his ’reward,’ that is, made him rewardable--by forfeiting pay he got reward: and in doing freely what he must do, he became free. When ’I must’ is changed into ’I will,’ you are free. And so in a profession you dislike--an alliance which is distasteful--a duty that must he done--acquiesence is Christian liberty. It is deliverance from the law.

"His second reason was to gain others. ’For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.’ For this was only one instance out of many; his whole life was one great illustration of the principle: free from all, he became the servant of all. He condescended to the mode of looking at life that was peculiar to the Gentiles with respect to their education and associations, to that of the Jews also, when form was expressive of a true reverential spirit. Nor less to the weak and superstitious; he sympathised with their weakness, tried to understand them, and to feel as they felt." To forego acknowledged rights and privileges for the sake of others is a worthy thing for a follower of the Christ of whom it is written that even he "pleased not himself."

Every disciple, and not merely the Christian preacher, might well imitate him who could say, "I can refrain from insisting on all my rights as a preacher of the Gospel" (Moffatt’s translation of 1 Corinthians 9:18). The Christian and the World.

There is no problem which more constantly presents itself for solution than that of the Christian’s relation to the world. It is apparent that in the apostolic days, as during all the subsequent history of the church, the question was discussed. The early environment of those who became Christians affected their viewpoint. On some points Jewish Christians were much more likely to be strict than were Gentile believers. It is clear to any reader of the New Testament that while some disciples adopted a very rigid code with which without warrant they sought to bind the consciences of others, there were many who took a dangerously lax attitude, and even a few who went so far in accommodation to the practices of unbelievers as to jeopardise their own souls and bring disgrace upon the church of God. The numerous apostolic warnings against love of the world forbid us to believe that our greatest problem--our young people’s problem, as it is often erroneously termed is peculiar to the twentieth century. A helpful principle. In our judgment, there are few passages of Scripture more likely to he helpful in a consideration of the question than 1 Corinthians 7:31, where the Apostle Paul urges Christians, while using the world, not to use it to the full. Our English versions, Common and Revised, both have the word "abuse," translating thus: "And those that use the world, as not abusing it."

We have seen that the Greek word, and the word "abuse" in older English, meant either abuse in the sense of misuse, of use to the full. In the only other passage in the New Testament where the word occurs (1 Corinthians 9:18) the revisers translated it "use to the full," and Paul’s argument demanded that meaning. It is a pity that our revisers were not consistent, for the whole treatment in chapter seven makes it clear that "using it to the full" is the proper rendering. While our English Revised Version has this proper reading in the margin, the American Standard Revised Version, Rotherham and Weymouth put it in the text.

Two classes of worldly things.

Worldly things, pleasures and activities, are of two classes. First, there are those which may be regarded as positively sinful or harmful in themselves. But, again, there are those which we cannot declare to be wrong in themselves, but with regard to the use of which special care should be exercised.

Regarding the former class, there is no doubt as to the Christian’s attitude. It must be an uncompromising one, Worldlings may feel free to practise deceit or fraud: to depart from strict honor, purity or truthfulness; to indulge in gambling. Drunkenness, and such things; but to the Christian there can be no such liberty. When we are dealing with things evil in themselves, with "abuses" in this sense, our rule is one of total abstinence. We must, indeed, "avoid the very appearance of evil" for such is the command of the Spirit of God. So far there will be little, if any, difference amongst Christians. We are thankful for the general willingness of disciples to keep from this kind of "abuse" of the world. But there is not the same unanimity with regard to the second class of worldly things. If we would all heed the injunction not to use the world to the full, there would be a immeasurable gain. Read 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, and it will be seen that "all the things mentioned in this series by the apostle are right things; and the warning is against being in bondage to those things which are in themselves right and good, and not against any criminal use of them."

"Not engrossed."

Consider Moffatt’s translation of 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 :

"I mean, brothers, the interval has been shortened; so let those who have wives live as if they had none; let mourners live as if they were not mourning, let the joyful live as if they had no joy, let buyers live as if they had no hold on their goods, let those who mix in the world live as if they were not engrossed in it, for the present state of things is passing away."

F. W. Robertson points out that Christianity stands between the worldly spirit and the narrow religious spirit. The former says, "Time is short, take your fill; live while you can." The latter so looks upon all pleasure in this life as a snare and dangerous, and says, "Keep out of it altogether." "In opposition to the narrow spirit, Christianity says, "Use the world," and in opposition to the worldly spirit, "Do not abuse it. All things are yours. Take them and use them; but never let them interfere with the higher life which you are called on to lead." It must be borne in mind that this advice cannot be given in reference to a thing which is in itself evil.

Leave margins.

Really, the apostle bids us leave margins. One who acts on his advice will leave even a margin of the field of legitimate things mentioned. We are not to be living on the borderline. The Christian attitude is not that of the person who is always as king, How near can I get to the line separating church and world? The familiar story of the school books about the man seeking to engage a coachman should not be forgotten. One declared he could drive within an inch of a precipice. To make a greater impression a second said he could go within half an inch. But the man who got the position said that he did not know how near he could go, for it was always his aim to keep as far from the edge as possible. Borderline Christians are not getting the best out of life. They cannot get the greatest good or enjoyment out of their religion; and, besides, they are not helping others as they ought. Let us each one remember that a question is not settled for the Christian when it is decided that it is not wrong in itself. The further questions press, Is it wise? is it helpful? does it interfere with my enjoyment of spiritual things, or with my Christian influence?

Let us not attempt to use the world to the full. "Instead of being moulded to this world, have your mind renewed, and so be transformed in nature, able to make out what the will of God is, namely, what is good and acceptable to him and perfect" (Romans 12:2, Moffatt’s translation).