Paul and the Law: The Evidence of 1 Cor 9.20-21

1 Cor 9.20-21—such a clear formulation of Paul’s relationship to the Law! It seems very simple, does it not? “To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law” (1 Cor 9.20b-21; NRSV). Paul acts as though he were under the Law or not—as necessity dictates—in order to make converts. Very practical.

But let us ask the text a few questions. What if we should ask—as E.P. Sanders does—how Paul behaved when in the presence of both ‘those under the law’ and ‘those not under the law’? Further, how can Paul say in one sentence that he is ‘not under the law’, and in the very next say that he is ‘not free from God’s law’ but ‘under Christ’s law’? Are we to distinguish between God’s law and Christ’s law? How do these two laws differ from ‘the’ law, which Paul claims not to be under? Very confusing.

This essay will explain the meaning of Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 9.20-21 and will consider the practical implications of the passage. Let us begin with an exegesis and consideration of past scholarship.

There has been as much unanimity on the interpretation of 1 Cor 9.20-21 as any New Testament scholar could hope. 9.20b stands in synonymous parallelism to 9.20a.[1] In the second half of the verse, Paul simply shifts emphasis from the people to the law.[2] toi/j u`po. no,mon (9.20b) are toi/j vIoudai,oij (9.20a).[3] ‘The law’ is the Jewish law; thus, ‘those under the law’ are Jews, and ‘those not under the law’ are Gentiles.[4]

“To the Jews evgeno,mhn as a Jew” (9.20). This is not a statement about Paul’s ethnicity. As noted above, in this context to be a Jew is to be under the Jewish law. Paul thus ‘became’ a Jew in the sense that he lived like a law-observant Jew in order to convert Jews. This is shown to be the case by verse 21: toi/j avno,moij w`j a;nomoj. Again, evgeno,mhn is the (understood) main verb. Paul has divided the world into two groups on the basis of who has and who does not have the Jewish law, and said about both that he ‘became’ one and then the other. Thiselton cites Hays approvingly to the effect that Paul considers himself to be in neither category. Rather, he is a new creation in Christ, and so is not bound by this culturally distinguishing stance toward the law.[5] Thiselton is correct. It is, in fact, the force of the concessive participial phrases in verses 20 and 21 to show that Paul is neither a law-observant Jew nor a ‘lawless’ Gentile. When Paul says, mh. w'n auvto.j u`po. no.mon, he is not claiming no longer to be an ethnic Jew, but no longer to be constrained to submit to Jewish law.[6] When Paul performed the Jewish law, therefore, he did so without constraint.[7]

That brings us up to verse 21, and here Paul jests with us a bit. One might have expected him to write something like toi/j mh. u`po. no,mon (as the inverse of 9.20b), or toi/j no,mon mh. e;cousin (as he would later write to the Romans; cf. Rom 2.14b, where only the case and gender differ). Instead, we find toi/j avno,moij w`j a;nomoj, which literally means ‘to the lawless I became as a lawless one’. Of course, by ‘lawless’ Paul meant ‘those who do not have the Jewish law (i.e., the Gentiles),[8] but he could quite easily be construed to mean something like ‘to the unruly/impious/wicked I became unruly/impious/wicked’. Again, as he did with v. 20b Paul adds a qualification to his statement in v.21a: mh. w'n a;nomoj qeou/… Paul adds the genitive qeou/ because of the ambiguity inherent in a;nomoj.[9] The genitive probably carries the sense of “in relation to God,”[10] or “toward God.”[11] I would, therefore, translate this as, “though I am not depraved in God’s sight.” Thus Paul asserts that he is not dissolute,[12] but that he is upright in God’s sight. We may infer that he considers himself constrained to obey God.[13]

Half way through the concessive clause in v.21 things get a bit more confusing. Of course, mh. w'n a;nomoj qeou/ may make sense in the way described above. But when Paul appends avllV e;nnomoj Cristou/,[14] we naturally wonder what in the world he means. It would seem normal for Paul to say that he is not lawless (meaning ‘dissolute’) ‘toward God’, but it somehow does not seem Pauline to say that he is actually under a different law that has something to do with Christ. Galatians—that epistle of freedom from the law—aside, Paul will shortly write that the believer is ‘not under law but under grace’ (Rom 6.14-15). Then again, it is in Galatians itself that we find the only other occurrence of a comparable phrase in the Paulines--to.n no,mon tou/ Cristou/ (Gal 6.2).

Even on v.21, however, there is a surprising amount of scholarly agreement, with the central ideas nuanced in various ways. e;nnomoj Cristou/ is taken to mean that Paul considers himself obligated to obey Christ. C.H. Dodd differentiates between ‘law of Christ’ and ‘law of the Spirit’.[15] The former refers primarily to the commands of Jesus and the latter to the life of Christian freedom lived under the “regulative principle” of the Spirit. According to Dodd, e;nnomoj Cristou/, therefore, is intentionally to obey Jesus’ teachings. Other commentators usually conceive of this as obedience both to the example of Jesus’ life and to the explicit commands of the Lord.[16] Dunn narrows the emphasis further to focus on Jesus’ explicit teaching of the love command.[17] But the consensus is that Paul means to include obedience to Jesus’ example as well.[18]

Scholars frequently sense that Paul does not intend to introduce a new law of any kind here;[19] though on this point there is some divergence of opinion. The no,moj-compounds in v.21b may be understood in the “improper”[20] sense as ‘norm’ or ‘rule’. As Conzelmann says, “Christ is the norm.”[21] In this case there is no reference to a law intended at all.

On the other hand, some scholars clearly see something more here. Witherington says that obedience to this law of Christ is compulsory for Christians. Violating the law of Christ can get a person booted out of the Kingdom (especially in light of 1 Cor 6.9-10); though obedience to this law does not make one righteous before God.[22] In a discussion of this and the parallel phrase in Gal 6.2, Dunn says, “To fulfill the law of Christ is to fulfill the law.”[23] According to Dunn, Paul says that fulfilling the whole law is still necessary for believers.[24] Thus, the law was not to be discarded, but continues to have practical relevance for Paul—i.e., the law as taught and practiced by Jesus, namely, as it is fulfilled in the love command. Paul encourages love of one’s neighbour precisely because it fulfils the law. Therefore, Torah obedience still matters to Paul, but only in so far as it is obedience to the ‘law of Christ’. Christ and his example show what is relevant in the law (viz., love) and how to fulfil it (through love).

Each of these understandings of e;nnomoj Cristou/ probably has some truth to it. As Dodd and others have pointed out, Jesus’ teachings and the example of Jesus’ life are important aspects of Paul’s ethic. Indeed, the verse that rounds off this entire section of the epistle reads, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11.1, NRSV). But it is probably not correct to conclude that e;nnomoj Cristou/ refers mainly to Jesus’ explicit commands. First, such an approach simply turns Jesus’ commands into oral legislation—a new law, and we have already noted Paul’s emphasis on Christian freedom. Second, we encounter special difficulties in establishing to just which of Jesus’ sayings Gal 6.2 (the only other instance of similar phraseology) refers.[25] Conzelmann’s ‘improper’ sense probably also contains some truth. Two major studies on law in Paul’s writings, by Winger and Räisänen, have given sufficient attention to no,moj in the Paulines to establish the fluctuation of its referents.[26] We cannot assume that e;nnomoj has a legal as opposed to a moral connotation here. Witherington is right to note that it is compulsory for a Christian to be e;nnomoj Cristou/, but given all Paul has said about Christian freedom from the law, Dunn is not justified claiming that Paul here implies constrained obedience to a Torah that has been ‘radically reduced’ to the love command.

However, the attention Dunn gives to the love command is not misplaced. It is certainly a cornerstone of Paul’s ethical teaching. The obvious parallel that exists between fulfilling ‘the law’ (Rom 13.8-10) and fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal 6.2) gives us reason to consider the significance of the love command for 1 Cor 9.20-21.[27] Concerning Gal 6.2, Michael Winger writes:

If law may now be regarded as in some sense reduced to this principle [i.e., neighbour-love]…, still this does not seem to have much effect on Paul’s treatment of law. If neighbour-love stands in some way for law, still love’s effectiveness, according to the argument of [Gal] 5.16-25, depends on the Spirit, and, according to 5.18, only on the Spirit.[28]

This decisively shifts the focus away from constraint to obey the law (however reduced) to the effectiveness of the Spirit’s work in the lives of believers. The same is true of e;nnomoj Cristou/. This phrase in 1 Cor 9.21 indicates a life lived in accordance with the work of the Holy Spirit in Paul’s life (cf. Gal 5.16), which includes fulfilment of the love command and Jesus’ commands.[29]

Before engaging in reflection on the practical and theological implications of these verses, it would be wise to draw together the elements of our discussion: ‘those under the law’ are Jews; the ‘lawless’ are Gentiles. Paul claims to adjust his behaviour (with regards to the Jewish law) towards each group for the purpose of ‘winning’ people from both groups. Although for the purpose of winning people he alters his position with respect to the Jewish law, Paul himself is neither constrained to obey the Jewish law nor free to live in any manner at all. Rather, he considers his behaviour to be upright in Christ’s sight. We are probably justified in making a connection between Paul’s ‘lawful’ behaviour here and the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, especially as it is characterised by a concern for others.

Now we must consider the practicality of Paul’s position. First, was such a position as Paul claims to take even possible? Second, is such a position consistent with Paul’s condemnation of Peter in Antioch?

E.P. Sanders’ position has been influential in answering the first question. Sanders believes that Paul’s profession to be as a Jew to Jews and as a Gentile to Gentiles could not actually have worked in practice. There would be situations in which he would be called upon to be both at once, and that was not possible to do.

When it came to cases Paul’s easy tolerance, which he effortlessly maintained in theory—it is a matter of individual conscience what one eats and whether on observes ‘days’—could not work. It was not only a matter of individual conscience, it turned out, but of Christian unity, and he judged one form of behavior to be wrong. The wrong form was living according to the law. We can hardly think, with Galatians before us, that in a mixed church Paul would have lived according to the law in order to please and win Jews.[30]

Sanders is correct: Christian unity was a decisive factor for Paul, and mixed churches (e.g., Antioch) by definition required Paul to become as a Gentile. Where Sanders goes wrong is in suggesting that because this principle cannot have been observed absolutely, it should be taken hyperbolically, not literally: Paul focussed almost exclusively on evangelising Gentiles, virtually ignoring Diaspora Jews.[31] Sanders forces us to chose between an ultra-literal and an ultra-hyperbolic interpretation. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. 1 Cor 9.19-23 should not be taken absolutely. We cannot assume that Torah-observance continued to be the norm among Jewish Christians. Nor can we assume that if the Torah were observed, it would necessarily exclude Gentile Christians from social intercourse with Jewish Christians. What about Antioch?

Well, Antioch is the question. Peter Richardson has written an important article accusing Paul of inconsistency in this very regard.[32] Richardson believes that Paul and Peter actually shared similar views about accommodation:

Peter’s action should not be viewed as hypocrisy but as an attempt (obviously unacceptable to Paul) to engage in a similar kind of accommodation to that which Paul espouses. They differ only in their views of the circumstances in which one should adopt such an ethic.[33]

Richardson argues that Paul’s principle of accommodation in 1 Cor 9.19-23 is meant to be applied to himself as an apostle; it is not for wholesale application by everyone in the church.[34] This leads Richardson to asks whether Paul’s principle of apostolic accommodation could not be applied to other apostles as well (e.g., Peter). Richardson himself applies to principle to Peter’s actions in Antioch and concludes that Peter accommodated himself to Paul while he was in Paul’s sphere of authority (Antioch) until people came from James, at which point he was put in a difficult situation and forced to make the best choice he could:

On the one hand he should continue to eat with uncircumcised Gentiles because to do otherwise would undercut Paul’s effective ministry and would lead to a serious misunderstanding of the position of Gentiles with respect to the Law. On the other hand he should identify with the representatives of the Jerusalem church, for to do otherwise would undercut his own ministry to the circumcision and would lead to a serious misunderstanding among Jews…, the very persons to whom he regularly ministered. …[H]e adapted his behaviour to the Jerusalem demands because that was the sphere in which his own role was primarily played.[35]

Paul’s actions in Antioch do appear to contradict his statement of missionary practice in 1 Cor 9. Richardson’s reconstruction, however, is transparently speculative, and so does not attempt to understand Paul’s actions but to construct a situation that accounts for his actions. Hypotheses of inconsistency should, perhaps, be reserved for the last resort. Can we make sense of Paul’s actions in other ways? Certainly… but that would require a closer look at what the texts actually say.

The context of 1 Cor 9.19-23 has to do with eating meat offered to idols. Paul begins with this specific problem (8.1-13), moves into a more general argument (9.1-27), and then makes his way back again to meat sacrificed to idols (10.14-33). It becomes clear that Paul’s instructions about meat offered to idols are an application of this principle: restrain the use of your freedom so as to bring about the other person’s advantage. This principle is rephrased and repeated in 8.1, 9, 13; 9.12, 15 (depending on how one understands Paul’s ground for boasting—is it the Corinthians themselves as in 2 Cor 1.14?), 19-22; 10.24, 32-33. Thus, Paul’s purpose for including 1 Cor 9.19-23 is because it demonstrates his concern for what effect his actions have on other people.

Part of the problem with the consensus interpretation of 1 Cor 9.19-23 is that it is taken absolutely, divorced from its context. 9.19-23 is meant to support Paul’s overarching instruction to do what builds up and helps out the other, not what tears them down. Its purpose is not to say that Paul simply does whatever everyone else does, but that he refrains from doing what would prevent others from coming to maturity in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Take note also that the purpose of Paul’s accommodation in 1 Cor 9.19-23 is to help people come to Christ, not to follow his own missionary principles at all costs. We would be accusing Paul of rote legalism if we demanded that he should live by this principle of accommodation even when the situation dictates that he should not. The point of this section in 1 Cor is to do what helps others along in the faith, not what prevents them from growth. Thus, we might even surmise that Paul would have abandoned this ‘missionary principle’ when it would hinder rather than promote someone’s spiritual growth. Antioch is a case in point. Whatever Peter thought he was doing—Paul says Peter acted out of fear (Gal 2.12)—it resulted in disintegration of unity, not edification of the body of Christ, and so Peter was culpable. Furthermore, if we take fobou,menoj (Gal 2.12) causally, Peter’s ‘accommodation’ was not done to help anyone along in the faith, but because he was afraid. No one would be served by such ‘accommodation’. Paul’s actions towards Peter in Antioch are an application of the very principle Paul is trying to communicate in 1 Cor 8-10, not a Pauline inconsistency. Take note, what Paul taught in 1 Cor 8-10 was intended to bring unity to the church; what Peter did in Gal 2.11-14 brought division.

As for the question of the internal consistency of Paul’s teaching, I do not think 1 Cor 9.19-23 poses significant challenges. Hans Hübner thinks Paul’s thought has developed linearly in the direction of tolerance.[36] This leads Hübner to say:

In Gal Paul is engaged in a fight on principle against putting oneself under the Law. But in 1 Cor 9.20 he is able to say that to those who are under the Law he becomes as one who is under the Law. This passage sounds almost like a Magna Charta of pastoral tolerance.[37]

Hübner has reversed the situations represented by the two letters. It is in Gal that we have Paul’s pastoral strategy, and in 1 Cor 9.20 that we have Paul’s missionary strategy. That is not to say that Paul’s theology is different in each case, but that in Gal he is concerned not to make the law a new condition of salvation,[38] and in 1 Cor 9.20 he is concerned not to make the law an impediment to salvation. There is no need to see development of thought here. The two situations are different.

To conclude, Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 9.20-21 give us valuable insight into his claim that Christians are free from the law. They may be free from the law, but they are not licentious; rather, they are upright in Christ’s sight. Paul’s purpose in this passage is to offer himself as an example for the Corinthians to follow of one who alters his own behaviour for the advantage of others. Understanding this provides the key to understanding why Paul acted as he did towards Peter in Antioch. We may certainly take this as a literal statement of Paul’s missionary activity; though it would be unwise to insist on rigid observance of the principle. Observance of the principle is for the sake of ‘winning’ converts, not for the sake of observance itself.

---

[1] E.g., Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 160, esp. n.23; Bruce; Barrett?; Dunn, Theology. Witherington, Ben, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 212, suggests an unnecessary dichotomy between reference to Jews on the one hand and God-fearers and proselytes on the other. He does not specify which group he takes to be included among ‘those under the Law’. The dichotomy is unnecessary because in v.20b the emphasis is on the law, not ethnicity. Proselytes certainly obeyed the law, as would God-fearers to some degree.

[2] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 428-429, esp. n.39.

[3] So Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000), 702.

[4] Bruce. Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 160) notes that this is a division of humankind into two categories according to the Jewish point of view. Thus, ‘those not under the law’ are Gentiles. Some include proselytes to Judaism in the category of ‘those under the law’ as well: Thiselton, First Epistle, 703; Blomberg includes ‘God-fearers’ too; Witherington (Conflict, 212), as noted above, appears undecided.

[5] See Thiselton, First Epistle, 702.

[6] Notice that Paul does not say ‘though I am not a Jew’ in 9.20a, but he does say ‘though I am not under the law’ in 9.20b.

[7] Fee, First Epistle, 429. Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 160): “He is able as a Jew to practice Jewish customs, without teaching that the Law is a way of salvation.”

[8] Thiselton (First Epistle, 703; emphasis omitted), a;nomoj refers to “Gentiles who are outside the revealed law of the OT and Judaism;” Witherington, Conflict, 212; Bruce; Barrett; Dunn. This is simply the opposite of those who are ‘under the law’ in verse 20; so Fee, First Epistle, 429. We find a similar use of the adverb in Rom 2.12.

[9] Bruce; Fee, First Epistle, 429-430, who points out the play on words here: a;nomoj can mean ‘lawless’ either in the sense of ‘not under the Jewish law’ or “godless, wicked.” Paul uses the word in both ways, in v.21a to refer to those not under the Jewish law, and in v.21b to assert that to be a;nomoj is not to be ‘lawless’ (= unruly, wicked) before God; thus the genitival qualifier, qeou/.

[10] So Bruce.

[11] So Fee, First Epistle, 429.

[12] Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 161) makes an interesting point: “Here… he has to declare that his freedom from the Law is not ‘lawlessness’.” That is, quite apart from the matter of the connotation of the word a;nomoj, one must reckon with the fact that from a Jewish standpoint to be apart from the Law is to be ‘lawless’ in the fullest sense of the word, regardless of how that non-relationship to the Law is expressed. [I SHOULD FIND DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS]

[13] Thiselton, First Epistle, 704-705. As one reads mh. w'n a;nomoj qeou/, one gets the sense that God’s law is larger than the Mosaic Law, since Paul hereby implies that he is somehow within the bounds of God’s law but not under the Jewish law (recall what was said in 9.20). See Bruce, who conceives of the law of God not as a written code, but as a matter of obedience from the heart, as in Jer 31. See also Thiselton.

[14] There may be further word play here. See Dunn.

[15] Dodd. It is interesting that nearly all who comment on this verse make some reference to Dodd, but no one seems to concur with his proposed distinctions!

[16] That Paul includes Jesus’ commands is typically justified from the context in which this verse occurs. Indications that Jesus’ commands were authoritative for Paul appear in 1 Cor 7.10, 12, 25; 9.14; 11.23 ff.; 14.37.

[17] Dunn.

[18] I take Thiselton to mean essentially this, as he says, “…the law of Christ should not be restricted to any specific body of traditional sayings of Jesus. Christians stand under the direction of the gospel as that which witnesses to Christ in a broader and more comprehensive sense (cf. Gal 6:2),” (First Epistle, 704; emphasis omitted).

[19] Barrett; Fee, First Epistle, 430.

[20] Conzelmann’s term, 1 Corinthians, 161.

[21] Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 161.

[22] Witherington, Conflict, 213.

[23] Dunn.

[24] For the remainder of this paragraph, see Dunn.

[25] So Räisänen, Paul, see esp. 77-82. Räisänen also finds 1 Cor 14.37 problematic, if Dodd’s view is true.

[26] Michael Winger. Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament; 29 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), 18-23.

[27] On Gal 6.2, see the important article by Michael Winger, “The Law of Christ,” in NTS 46/4 (2000): 537-546. Winger thinks that the connection between Gal 6.2 and 1 Cor 9.21 is “doubtful.” The genitives ‘God’ and ‘Christ’ in 1 Cor 9.21 probably mean “concerning” or “with respect to…” Winger says the idea may be: “God does not regard me as lawless; in fact, Christ regards me as lawful” (Winger, “Law of Christ,” 545-546)—compare my own paraphrase above. But Winger argues from the context of Gal 6.2 that the direction of the Spirit is the way in which Christ exercises authority over the body of believers, and this includes the love command in Gal 5.14 (see Winger, “Law of Christ,” 544). The context of 1 Cor 9.21 similarly enjoins believers to care for others. Indeed, Gal 5.13-14 offers a very close parallel to the twin concepts of freedom and obligation to care for others that predominates in 1 Cor 8-10! If e;nnomoj Cristou/ denotes Christ’s authority over believers in any sense, then Winger’s findings regarding the meaning of to.n no,mon tou/ Cristou/ have significance for understanding e;nnomoj Cristou/ as well.

[28] Winger, “Law of Christ,” 544.

[29] For a similarly integrative position, see Colin G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 130: “For Paul, to live ennomos Christou would not have been a new legalism based on the commands of the historical Jesus and the exalted Christ, but probably a life lived in the service of Christ out of gratitude for his amazing love, in which the commands of Christ were gladly obeyed.”

[30] Sanders, Paul, the Law, 178

[31] See Sanders, Paul, the Law, 185-190.

[32] Peter Richardson, “Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2: 11-14,” in NTS 26 (1980): 347-362.

[33] Richardson, “Pauline Inconsistency,” 348.

[34] Richardson, “Pauline Inconsistency,” 355-356.

[35] Richardson, “Pauline Inconsistency,” 360-361.

[36] Hans Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, trans. by James C.G. Greig, ed. by John Riches (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), 10. ET of Das Gesetz bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978).

[37] Hübner, Law, 91-92, n.47.

[38] On another view, Paul is perhaps concerned not to make salvation into a new kind of ‘covenantal nomism’!