1 Corinthians Chapter 9
Chapter 9: Paul Sets Aside His Own Freedoms
This brings us to chapter nine. In chapter eight, Paul discusses the rights and freedoms of believers, and the importance of foregoing these if necessary for the sake of the gospel and the growth of other believers. In chapter nine, Paul will give an example of this very thing by discussing some of his rights and freedoms that he has willingly given up for the sake of the gospel. Paul begins in verse one with a series of rhetorical questions that demonstrate his rights and freedoms based on his apostleship. Paul has the right to eat and drink (4), take a believing wife (5), and refrain from working for a living (6), just as the other apostles do. It is the last right that Paul will focus on for much of chapter nine: the right to subsist on the gospel message and not work for a living.
Paul argues that soldiers are paid for their work, one who plants a vineyard drinks of the wine, and a herdsman drinks the milk (7). Similarly, he says that the priests who work in the temple eat of the offerings sacrificed there (13). These are examples from everyday human experience. But Paul goes further, asking the question, “Do I say these things on human authority?” (8). He then appeals to the authority of the Torah saying, “Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses ...” (8b-9a). Just as the ox can eat freely of some of the grain it treads out, so can Paul expect material provision for his work in proclaiming the gospel (9-11). On the authority of the Torah, Paul and Barnabas have a right to claim support for their work in the harvest of the world (10).
Some have argued that the precepts of the Torah are merely instructional, and not regulatory. However, this is inconsistent with how New Testament authors, including Paul, use the Torah and the entire Old Testament. In his essay entitled “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” Roger Nicole states that more than ten percent of the New Testament is taken from the Old Testament, either through direct citations or indirect allusions. Nicole says,
This brings us to chapter nine. In chapter eight, Paul discusses the rights and freedoms of believers, and the importance of foregoing these if necessary for the sake of the gospel and the growth of other believers. In chapter nine, Paul will give an example of this very thing by discussing some of his rights and freedoms that he has willingly given up for the sake of the gospel. Paul begins in verse one with a series of rhetorical questions that demonstrate his rights and freedoms based on his apostleship. Paul has the right to eat and drink (4), take a believing wife (5), and refrain from working for a living (6), just as the other apostles do. It is the last right that Paul will focus on for much of chapter nine: the right to subsist on the gospel message and not work for a living.
Paul argues that soldiers are paid for their work, one who plants a vineyard drinks of the wine, and a herdsman drinks the milk (7). Similarly, he says that the priests who work in the temple eat of the offerings sacrificed there (13). These are examples from everyday human experience. But Paul goes further, asking the question, “Do I say these things on human authority?” (8). He then appeals to the authority of the Torah saying, “Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses ...” (8b-9a). Just as the ox can eat freely of some of the grain it treads out, so can Paul expect material provision for his work in proclaiming the gospel (9-11). On the authority of the Torah, Paul and Barnabas have a right to claim support for their work in the harvest of the world (10).
Some have argued that the precepts of the Torah are merely instructional, and not regulatory. However, this is inconsistent with how New Testament authors, including Paul, use the Torah and the entire Old Testament. In his essay entitled “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” Roger Nicole states that more than ten percent of the New Testament is taken from the Old Testament, either through direct citations or indirect allusions. Nicole says,
From beginning to end, the New Testament authors ascribe unqualified authority to Old Testament Scripture. Whenever advanced, a quotation is viewed as normative. Nowhere do we find a tendency to question, argue, or repudiate the truth of any Scripture utterance” (137ff). There is simply no scriptural basis for believers to assert that the Old Testament is merely informative, but not authoritative.
A person might disagree, pointing to Matthew five as an example. Here Jesus quotes various laws from the Torah (“You have heard ...”), and then seems to supersede or improve upon them (“But I tell you ...”). However, Jesus is not adding to, changing, or improving God's laws, but rather is exposing the heart of the law (i.e. adultery is not merely physical but starts in the heart and mind). Jesus certainly is not negating the external (i.e. “Do not murder”), but showing the condition of the heart (hatred of one's brother is equivalent to murder). In Matthew five, the Old Testament remains authoritative. Moreover, Jesus applies it to even deeper levels than his listeners expected, requiring greater depths of dedication to God's commandments.
This is so crucial, and we are compelled to chew on this idea a bit longer. When it comes to the Torah, so many believers throw out the “external” law while claiming to cling to the “heart” of its message. We have seen this again and again. For example, many Christians are eager to learn about the significance of the Messiah in God's feast days found in the Torah, but lack the desire to actually participate in the feasts. They feel understanding is enough. But when we apply this same practice (understanding the internal and so dismissing the external) to other commands of God, we see the absurdity of such a practice. For example, let's consider the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). There is an external aspect of this command, mainly that a husband or wife should not forsake his or her spouse and be joined with another. Yet there is also a deeper significance to this command, one that reveals our relationship to our Creator. He is said to be our husband and we his bride (Isaiah 54:6; Hosea 2:16-20; 2 Corinthians 11:2). We are called to be faithful to him and not join ourselves to other gods/lovers (Exodus 34:14-16; Jeremiah 3). This is the ultimate significance of the seventh commandment. Now, since we understand the “heart” level of “You shall not commit adultery,” may we then dismiss the external command? May we say, “It is okay if I am unfaithful to my spouse. I understand what the command is really about, and I will remain faithful to my God”? Certainly not! We are to obey the external command, while at the same time keep in the forefront of our minds the spiritual significance. The beauty of this command, like all of God's commands, is we can practice and rehearse and daily remind ourselves of our faithfulness to our God by being faithful to our earthly spouse. And it is the same with God's feast days, and many other commands in Torah. We must not dismiss them after we “understand” them.
We see in First Corinthians nine that Paul thought the Torah and wider Old Testament were regulatory, not just in concept but also in application. First of all, his appeal to the Torah is an appeal to authority that is contrasted with and supersedes human authority or teaching. This is the stated purpose of his appeal to the Torah, for he writes in verse eight, “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?” Here Paul points out that not only do everyday life and human understanding demonstrate his point (7), but moreover, that which comes from God, of divine authority, demonstrates his point. Paul unabashedly states that the law has divine authority.
Second, he writes, “If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?” (12a). Since Paul can back his claim with the authority of God's Word, then it is clearly a "rightful claim.” It is an obligation that God has placed on the Corinthians through the precepts of the Torah, not just through human authority or examples. Paul has made a solid case because he has based it on the authority of the law. Clearly, for Paul, the Torah was God's authoritative voice that was intended to regulate human conduct.
Some may argue with this, saying that Paul’s statement “Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” in verse 12b implies that the command was permissive, and thus instructional, but not regulatory. This is a wrong exegesis of the passage, and such a distinction creates a false dichotomy between instruction and regulation. Neither Paul, nor the Torah, creates such a distinction between God's instruction and God's regulation, and therefore, it is a mistake for us to do so. Every instruction God gives Israel in the Torah is expected to be followed. Paul appeals to the Torah as his authority, not merely as some historical reference. If Paul saw the Torah as an authority that superseded human authority to the point of citing a verse dealing with oxen, we cannot allow ourselves to create a false dichotomy by saying the law's purpose was formerly regulatory, but with the coming of Christ, it is now only instructive. For Paul, the Torah is authoritative, and Paul uses the Torah's authority to place obligation on those responsible for provision.
But notice, the obligation is not placed on those doing the work. Using the above examples that Paul gave, does the soldier have to accept pay for his service? Does a farmer have to drink wine? Or is a shepherd required to drink milk? Does an ox have to eat of the grain? Certainly not. In the same way, Paul can choose not to receive subsistence from the Corinthians rather than place an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Paul’s lack of demand is not the same as a lack of obligation on the Corinthians.
This brings us to the passage in question. Let’s examine it to see if Paul literally gave up the Torah to win those who did not follow the Torah. Further, let's see if he only kept the Torah for the sake of winning Jews.
This is so crucial, and we are compelled to chew on this idea a bit longer. When it comes to the Torah, so many believers throw out the “external” law while claiming to cling to the “heart” of its message. We have seen this again and again. For example, many Christians are eager to learn about the significance of the Messiah in God's feast days found in the Torah, but lack the desire to actually participate in the feasts. They feel understanding is enough. But when we apply this same practice (understanding the internal and so dismissing the external) to other commands of God, we see the absurdity of such a practice. For example, let's consider the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). There is an external aspect of this command, mainly that a husband or wife should not forsake his or her spouse and be joined with another. Yet there is also a deeper significance to this command, one that reveals our relationship to our Creator. He is said to be our husband and we his bride (Isaiah 54:6; Hosea 2:16-20; 2 Corinthians 11:2). We are called to be faithful to him and not join ourselves to other gods/lovers (Exodus 34:14-16; Jeremiah 3). This is the ultimate significance of the seventh commandment. Now, since we understand the “heart” level of “You shall not commit adultery,” may we then dismiss the external command? May we say, “It is okay if I am unfaithful to my spouse. I understand what the command is really about, and I will remain faithful to my God”? Certainly not! We are to obey the external command, while at the same time keep in the forefront of our minds the spiritual significance. The beauty of this command, like all of God's commands, is we can practice and rehearse and daily remind ourselves of our faithfulness to our God by being faithful to our earthly spouse. And it is the same with God's feast days, and many other commands in Torah. We must not dismiss them after we “understand” them.
We see in First Corinthians nine that Paul thought the Torah and wider Old Testament were regulatory, not just in concept but also in application. First of all, his appeal to the Torah is an appeal to authority that is contrasted with and supersedes human authority or teaching. This is the stated purpose of his appeal to the Torah, for he writes in verse eight, “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?” Here Paul points out that not only do everyday life and human understanding demonstrate his point (7), but moreover, that which comes from God, of divine authority, demonstrates his point. Paul unabashedly states that the law has divine authority.
Second, he writes, “If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?” (12a). Since Paul can back his claim with the authority of God's Word, then it is clearly a "rightful claim.” It is an obligation that God has placed on the Corinthians through the precepts of the Torah, not just through human authority or examples. Paul has made a solid case because he has based it on the authority of the law. Clearly, for Paul, the Torah was God's authoritative voice that was intended to regulate human conduct.
Some may argue with this, saying that Paul’s statement “Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” in verse 12b implies that the command was permissive, and thus instructional, but not regulatory. This is a wrong exegesis of the passage, and such a distinction creates a false dichotomy between instruction and regulation. Neither Paul, nor the Torah, creates such a distinction between God's instruction and God's regulation, and therefore, it is a mistake for us to do so. Every instruction God gives Israel in the Torah is expected to be followed. Paul appeals to the Torah as his authority, not merely as some historical reference. If Paul saw the Torah as an authority that superseded human authority to the point of citing a verse dealing with oxen, we cannot allow ourselves to create a false dichotomy by saying the law's purpose was formerly regulatory, but with the coming of Christ, it is now only instructive. For Paul, the Torah is authoritative, and Paul uses the Torah's authority to place obligation on those responsible for provision.
But notice, the obligation is not placed on those doing the work. Using the above examples that Paul gave, does the soldier have to accept pay for his service? Does a farmer have to drink wine? Or is a shepherd required to drink milk? Does an ox have to eat of the grain? Certainly not. In the same way, Paul can choose not to receive subsistence from the Corinthians rather than place an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Paul’s lack of demand is not the same as a lack of obligation on the Corinthians.
This brings us to the passage in question. Let’s examine it to see if Paul literally gave up the Torah to win those who did not follow the Torah. Further, let's see if he only kept the Torah for the sake of winning Jews.
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Paul has just made the case that though he is free (1), he has made himself a servant (also translated slave) (19). The question we should be asking ourselves is, Was Paul really a slave? Clearly not. However, he was willing to be treated as a slave to those he was serving, and was not taking that which actually belonged to him, as a free man would. Does this violate the Torah? No. All the way through verse16, Paul continues to make his case: though the Corinthians had an obligation to support him by the authority of the Torah, he would not impose that on them. Why? By not imposing this obligation upon them, he would be rewarded in heaven (17). The important key here is that Paul never changed his status from a free man to that of a slave. He was a free man who was not demanding the rights of a free man. Nothing in this section demands that Paul legally changed his status from a free man to a slave.
The next verse (20a), Paul writes that to the Jews he became as a Jew for the purpose of winning Jews. However, unlike the free versus slave analogy above, Paul was a Jew. What does it mean that he became “as a Jew”? Some scholars have posited that “becoming like a Jew” means following all the laws and regulations set forth in the Torah, though Paul himself was no longer obligated to do so. Fee says the following:
The next verse (20a), Paul writes that to the Jews he became as a Jew for the purpose of winning Jews. However, unlike the free versus slave analogy above, Paul was a Jew. What does it mean that he became “as a Jew”? Some scholars have posited that “becoming like a Jew” means following all the laws and regulations set forth in the Torah, though Paul himself was no longer obligated to do so. Fee says the following:
How can a Jew determine to “become like a Jew”? The obvious answer is, In matters that have to do with Jewish religious peculiarities that Paul as a Christian had long ago given up as essential to a right relationship with God. These would include circumcision (7:19; Gal. 6:15), food laws (8:8; Gal. 2:10–13; Rom. 14:17; Col. 2:16), and special observances (Col. 2:16) (428).
Here Fee states that the obvious interpretation of this passage is that Paul accepts circumcision, food laws, and special days (i.e. weekly Sabbath and high Sabbaths) when he is among the Jews, for the purpose of winning the Jews. This interpretation raises some concerns. First, Fee claims it is an obvious interpretation, yet there is nothing in the immediate text to suggest that Paul is referring to the ceremonial or civil aspects of the Torah. Might there be a way to “become like a Jew” that includes following cultural or extra-biblical customs? Why is Fee's interpretation any more obvious than one of these, since the text does not offer any specifics? Second, as we showed in Acts, Paul had clearly not given up “special observances” from the Torah. In fact, he had undertaken a Nazarite vow and was asked to go through the purification ritual, not for the purpose of “becoming like a Jew,” but rather as proof of his faithfulness to God's law and to refute the false allegations spoken against him. Third, Fee cites several passages in Romans, Galatians, and Colossians as support that circumcision, food laws, and special observances (holy days) are done away with. However, there are many valid and strong arguments based on the context of these same passages that show the opposite to be true (see Galatians 6, Galatians 2, Romans 14, Colossians 2). Fee's support does not necessarily match his claims. It is crucial that the context of these passages be carefully examined.
In contrast, let's look at scholar Dr. Michael Brown, who has published a five volume set, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, and The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the Mysteries of the Hidden Messiah. Dr. Brown, like Paul, has “become like a Jew to win the Jews.” Michael Brown has a ministry to share the gospel with the Jewish people. He argues that Jesus is the promised Messiah, but he does so from the Old Testament, from the Mishna (the oral traditions of the rabbis that were written down), and from other extra-biblical rabbinic writings. Though a believer in the Messiah, Michael Brown, who is Jewish, becomes a Jew, arguing like them, using their sources and their teachings, in order to win Jews. He shows them how their own rabbis make many statements that support what is taught by the apostles in the New Testament about the Messiah, and then he compares these rabbinic statements to Jesus. This method would not work with Gentiles, yet holds great weight for someone of a Jewish background. Similarly, Paul, when speaking to his countrymen, argued for Jesus’ messiahship from their own point of view in order to win them to Christ. He likely participated in some of their practices based on the Oral Law—regulations that were esteemed by the Jews. Neither Brown's nor Paul's method of evangelism has anything to do with observing the written law, the Torah, to win the Jews. Observing the law is not an evangelism strategy, it is a matter of obedience to God. On the other hand, understanding the cultural framework of the Jews and using it as a tool to preach the gospel is an evangelism strategy. Participating in some of their extra-biblical practices from the Oral Law is an evangelism strategy, as long as these practices do not conflict with God's commands. It is “becoming like a Jew to win the Jews.”
In verse 20b, Paul writes, “To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.” Many assume that “under the law” is a synonymous phrase for “like a Jew” in the first part of this verse. Certainly it is common to use parallel phrases to emphasize a point, yet it seems out of place in this particular list since “Jew” (20a), “under the law” (20b), “outside the law” (21), and “weak” (22) cannot all be parallel phrases. In fact, Paul purposely includes a variety of groups to show that he is all things to all people (22). This is not to say that the categories are mutually exclusive, yet none of them are perfectly synonymous. Fee admits the puzzling nature of listing “Jew” and “under the law” in a list of varying groups, yet still claims they are synonymous:
In contrast, let's look at scholar Dr. Michael Brown, who has published a five volume set, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, and The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the Mysteries of the Hidden Messiah. Dr. Brown, like Paul, has “become like a Jew to win the Jews.” Michael Brown has a ministry to share the gospel with the Jewish people. He argues that Jesus is the promised Messiah, but he does so from the Old Testament, from the Mishna (the oral traditions of the rabbis that were written down), and from other extra-biblical rabbinic writings. Though a believer in the Messiah, Michael Brown, who is Jewish, becomes a Jew, arguing like them, using their sources and their teachings, in order to win Jews. He shows them how their own rabbis make many statements that support what is taught by the apostles in the New Testament about the Messiah, and then he compares these rabbinic statements to Jesus. This method would not work with Gentiles, yet holds great weight for someone of a Jewish background. Similarly, Paul, when speaking to his countrymen, argued for Jesus’ messiahship from their own point of view in order to win them to Christ. He likely participated in some of their practices based on the Oral Law—regulations that were esteemed by the Jews. Neither Brown's nor Paul's method of evangelism has anything to do with observing the written law, the Torah, to win the Jews. Observing the law is not an evangelism strategy, it is a matter of obedience to God. On the other hand, understanding the cultural framework of the Jews and using it as a tool to preach the gospel is an evangelism strategy. Participating in some of their extra-biblical practices from the Oral Law is an evangelism strategy, as long as these practices do not conflict with God's commands. It is “becoming like a Jew to win the Jews.”
In verse 20b, Paul writes, “To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.” Many assume that “under the law” is a synonymous phrase for “like a Jew” in the first part of this verse. Certainly it is common to use parallel phrases to emphasize a point, yet it seems out of place in this particular list since “Jew” (20a), “under the law” (20b), “outside the law” (21), and “weak” (22) cannot all be parallel phrases. In fact, Paul purposely includes a variety of groups to show that he is all things to all people (22). This is not to say that the categories are mutually exclusive, yet none of them are perfectly synonymous. Fee admits the puzzling nature of listing “Jew” and “under the law” in a list of varying groups, yet still claims they are synonymous:
[Under the law] is more puzzling. Ordinarily this would obviously refer to Jews; but does it also do so when listed as a second item following “the Jews”? Most likely it does, and is so expressed because the specific issue was related not simply to matters of national origin but especially to matters of Jewish (religious) legal requirements (428).
Again, there are several concerns with Fee's understanding of “under the law.” He states the specific issue is related to matters of Jewish legal requirements in the Torah, but he does not give support from the context of First Corinthians nine, nor other Pauline passages. How do we know Paul is referring to those who follow the regulations in the Torah? First Corinthians nine provides very little context to determine what Paul means, so we must look at how Paul uses “under the law” (hupo nomos in Greek) in other passages.
In our discussion on the book of Romans, we discuss the term hupo nomos, translated “under the law.” As we explain, hupo nomos consistently refers to those who are without Christ and therefore slaves to sin. This status puts them under the penalty of the law. Hupo nomos is never applied to believers, but rather to those who are in an unregenerate state, and while it may refer to unbelieving Jews, it may also apply to Gentiles. Garland agrees, saying, “'To be under the law' means to be judged by the law (Romans 2:12), to be under divine wrath as a violator of the law (Romans 4:15), and under a curse (Galatians 3:10)” (430). Where “as a Jew” indicates identifying with a particular culture, “under the law” indicates identifying with a status before God: under his judgment (as opposed to under his grace).
This, of course, raises an issue with the immediate text. How could Paul present himself as hupo nomos, under the penalty of the law, in an unregenerate state, when in reality, Paul is hupo charis, under grace? Again, common sense must prevail here. When we are speaking to the unsaved, do we come to them with a spirit of arrogance telling them that we are going to heaven, but they are going to hell? Obviously, this is not a productive approach. Instead, we help to reveal to the unsaved their need for a Savior because we too have a need for a Savior. We may ask if they have committed adultery, lied, or stolen. We confess that we too have done this previously, and were under the judgment of God for our sins. In other words, we relate to those who are lost, identifying with them in their state of being hupo nomos in order to show them a path from their predicament.
As believers, now under grace, we are still able to relate to those who are under the law, because we have not yet seen the fullness of our salvation. This is what Paul so poignantly depicts in Romans 7:14-25:
In our discussion on the book of Romans, we discuss the term hupo nomos, translated “under the law.” As we explain, hupo nomos consistently refers to those who are without Christ and therefore slaves to sin. This status puts them under the penalty of the law. Hupo nomos is never applied to believers, but rather to those who are in an unregenerate state, and while it may refer to unbelieving Jews, it may also apply to Gentiles. Garland agrees, saying, “'To be under the law' means to be judged by the law (Romans 2:12), to be under divine wrath as a violator of the law (Romans 4:15), and under a curse (Galatians 3:10)” (430). Where “as a Jew” indicates identifying with a particular culture, “under the law” indicates identifying with a status before God: under his judgment (as opposed to under his grace).
This, of course, raises an issue with the immediate text. How could Paul present himself as hupo nomos, under the penalty of the law, in an unregenerate state, when in reality, Paul is hupo charis, under grace? Again, common sense must prevail here. When we are speaking to the unsaved, do we come to them with a spirit of arrogance telling them that we are going to heaven, but they are going to hell? Obviously, this is not a productive approach. Instead, we help to reveal to the unsaved their need for a Savior because we too have a need for a Savior. We may ask if they have committed adultery, lied, or stolen. We confess that we too have done this previously, and were under the judgment of God for our sins. In other words, we relate to those who are lost, identifying with them in their state of being hupo nomos in order to show them a path from their predicament.
As believers, now under grace, we are still able to relate to those who are under the law, because we have not yet seen the fullness of our salvation. This is what Paul so poignantly depicts in Romans 7:14-25:
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Just as Paul openly admitted, we still struggle with sin and are fully aware of the battle between our flesh and our minds. We eagerly await the full reality of our salvation, when both our minds and bodies will be redeemed (Romans 8:23). Because of this struggle, we can identify with and understand those who are under the law, though we are no longer under the law.
Next, Paul says he becomes like one outside the law, to win those outside the law (21). Again, Fee assumes this means that Paul adopts Gentile customs that are contrary to Jewish Law. He states,
Next, Paul says he becomes like one outside the law, to win those outside the law (21). Again, Fee assumes this means that Paul adopts Gentile customs that are contrary to Jewish Law. He states,
To put it in more contemporary terms, when [Paul] was among Jews he was kosher; when he was among Gentiles he was nonkosher precisely because, as with circumcision, neither mattered to God (cf. 7:19; 8:8) (427).
The implication of Fee's understanding is that God's commands given to Israel were arbitrary. It would mean that God's commands didn't really matter to him but were arbitrarily chosen for some reason other than their importance to the Creator, and therefore, they can be discarded to win those who do not follow them. Is this what Paul meant when he said he became like one outside the law? The burden of proof is on Fee, for where does Paul say, “To win the Gentile, I ate their pork, shellfish, or other biblically-unclean food”? Someone might point to Galatians two, where Paul corrects Peter for withdrawing from eating with Gentiles. In our discourse on Galatians 2, we show that Peter was in the wrong, not because he didn't eat biblically unclean foods (which would have violated God's law), but rather because he didn't eat with Gentiles. Peter chose to follow the Jewish Oral Law that forbid eating with Gentiles, even though such a law was in direct conflict with God's law. Fee cites 1 Corinthians 8:8 as support for the idea that Paul eats nonkosher foods to win the Gentiles, yet the context of this passage (discussed above) is not talking about eating unclean meats such as pork, but rather eating food sacrificed to idols (which Paul does not permit for multiple reasons—see chapter eight above—even if it allows you to relate to Gentiles).
Garland rejects the idea that Paul took on Gentile customs when he was among Gentiles and says, “The principle 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do' did not regulate [Paul's] actions” (431). Rather, when Paul states that he becomes all things to all people, he means that he will always sacrifice himself for the sake of the people he is preaching the gospel to. It is not about living their lifestyle; rather, it is about modeling the example of Christ who came in the likeness of man, as a servant (Philippians 2:7), though he was by nature God (Philippians 2:6). Christ is the ultimate example of self-sacrifice and humility to win souls, and Paul follows this example.
Becoming like one outside the law does not mean becoming lawless for the convenience of sharing the gospel. It does not mean changing God's instruction given to his people. Paul does not encourage us to compromise our obedience in order to more effectively preach God's Word.
So what does Paul change? Where is he flexible? He is flexible in areas of freedom that God has granted us. For example, there are certain cultural practices that do not violate God's commands, which we have the freedom to either participate or not participate in. In such areas, Paul did what most effectively reached his audience. Becoming as one “without the law” would include using cultural elements that are important to a specific group of people in order to help them understand the gospel. This is a missionary strategy that is still used today. The movie, The End of the Spear, documents Operation Auca, in which five Christian missionaries evangelized the members of the Waodani tribe. One of the tribesman, Mincayani, speared the missionaries. Yet later, the son of one of the missionaries returns to show them that God’s son allowed himself to be speared and did not retaliate, and because this missionary followed Jesus, he also would not retaliate. This movie shows how “becoming as one outside the law (not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law” is rightly interpreted. Notice that the missionaries did not become spearers to win the Waodani tribe, but rather used the tribe's own culture, even a cruel aspect of their culture (spearing others), to show the magnificence of God, and thereby, win them to Christ.
Similarly, Paul did not become a pagan to win pagans. He did not become an idolater to win idolaters, an adulterer or a participant in child sacrifice to win adulterers or those practicing heinous idolatrous sacrifices. He did not even eat meat sacrificed to idols to become like those who ate meat sacrificed to idols. He did not give up the Torah to win those who do not follow the Torah. Just as the Christian missionaries remained Christian, but used a cultural aspect of the Waodani tribe in order to reach them on their level, so too Paul remained faithful to the Torah, but used Gentile cultural aspects to reveal the One True God. We see an example of this in Acts, when in Athens:
Garland rejects the idea that Paul took on Gentile customs when he was among Gentiles and says, “The principle 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do' did not regulate [Paul's] actions” (431). Rather, when Paul states that he becomes all things to all people, he means that he will always sacrifice himself for the sake of the people he is preaching the gospel to. It is not about living their lifestyle; rather, it is about modeling the example of Christ who came in the likeness of man, as a servant (Philippians 2:7), though he was by nature God (Philippians 2:6). Christ is the ultimate example of self-sacrifice and humility to win souls, and Paul follows this example.
Becoming like one outside the law does not mean becoming lawless for the convenience of sharing the gospel. It does not mean changing God's instruction given to his people. Paul does not encourage us to compromise our obedience in order to more effectively preach God's Word.
So what does Paul change? Where is he flexible? He is flexible in areas of freedom that God has granted us. For example, there are certain cultural practices that do not violate God's commands, which we have the freedom to either participate or not participate in. In such areas, Paul did what most effectively reached his audience. Becoming as one “without the law” would include using cultural elements that are important to a specific group of people in order to help them understand the gospel. This is a missionary strategy that is still used today. The movie, The End of the Spear, documents Operation Auca, in which five Christian missionaries evangelized the members of the Waodani tribe. One of the tribesman, Mincayani, speared the missionaries. Yet later, the son of one of the missionaries returns to show them that God’s son allowed himself to be speared and did not retaliate, and because this missionary followed Jesus, he also would not retaliate. This movie shows how “becoming as one outside the law (not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law” is rightly interpreted. Notice that the missionaries did not become spearers to win the Waodani tribe, but rather used the tribe's own culture, even a cruel aspect of their culture (spearing others), to show the magnificence of God, and thereby, win them to Christ.
Similarly, Paul did not become a pagan to win pagans. He did not become an idolater to win idolaters, an adulterer or a participant in child sacrifice to win adulterers or those practicing heinous idolatrous sacrifices. He did not even eat meat sacrificed to idols to become like those who ate meat sacrificed to idols. He did not give up the Torah to win those who do not follow the Torah. Just as the Christian missionaries remained Christian, but used a cultural aspect of the Waodani tribe in order to reach them on their level, so too Paul remained faithful to the Torah, but used Gentile cultural aspects to reveal the One True God. We see an example of this in Acts, when in Athens:
Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:22-31).
Here, Paul finds an object from Gentile culture, an altar to an unknown God, and uses it to proclaim to them a God they do not know—the true God, who made the world. He started with something they could understand and used it to preach the gospel. He became as one “outside the law.”
What, then, is the meaning of Paul’s statement, “not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ?” Paul is making sure his readers know that he is not living outside God’s law, and that he is not actually hupo nomos, under the reign of sin, but rather is hupo charis, under grace. Hupo charis is a synonym for being under the law of Christ because it is only through Christ that we leave our status as being hupo nomos (a slave to sin, under the penalty of the law) and live in the forgiveness found through Christ’s death. Should Paul have not written this, the Corinthians may have questioned whether Paul found himself actually a slave to sin once again and fallen from grace, or believed wrongly that Paul was not living in obedience to God’s Torah. This statement makes it clear that Paul is simply reaching out to people where they are, not acting like them where they are. This is another example of how Paul imitated Christ, who left his dwelling place in heaven to dwell with men in their fallen state, but did not live sinfully, violating the Torah as men do. As Garland states, Paul “conformed to the pattern of his Lord. He imitates Christ's self-emptying humiliation and suffering for others” (436).
Paul continues this same theme, saying that he becomes weak to the weak (22). He has already given specific instruction on how he becomes weak to the weak in chapter eight, where he is willing to permanently forego eating meat if it causes his weaker brother to stumble. The theme of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel continues through the end of the chapter, where Paul describes his self-discipline to win the prize. He is driven, his focus is unwavering, and his willingness to forego pleasures and rights is constant.
What, then, is the meaning of Paul’s statement, “not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ?” Paul is making sure his readers know that he is not living outside God’s law, and that he is not actually hupo nomos, under the reign of sin, but rather is hupo charis, under grace. Hupo charis is a synonym for being under the law of Christ because it is only through Christ that we leave our status as being hupo nomos (a slave to sin, under the penalty of the law) and live in the forgiveness found through Christ’s death. Should Paul have not written this, the Corinthians may have questioned whether Paul found himself actually a slave to sin once again and fallen from grace, or believed wrongly that Paul was not living in obedience to God’s Torah. This statement makes it clear that Paul is simply reaching out to people where they are, not acting like them where they are. This is another example of how Paul imitated Christ, who left his dwelling place in heaven to dwell with men in their fallen state, but did not live sinfully, violating the Torah as men do. As Garland states, Paul “conformed to the pattern of his Lord. He imitates Christ's self-emptying humiliation and suffering for others” (436).
Paul continues this same theme, saying that he becomes weak to the weak (22). He has already given specific instruction on how he becomes weak to the weak in chapter eight, where he is willing to permanently forego eating meat if it causes his weaker brother to stumble. The theme of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel continues through the end of the chapter, where Paul describes his self-discipline to win the prize. He is driven, his focus is unwavering, and his willingness to forego pleasures and rights is constant.