The Law of Christ debate - Part 5

A look at 1 Corinthians 9

The Law of Christ - the debate continues - a look at 1 Corinthians 9

"Free from everyone, slave to all"

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible."  (1 Corinthians 9 vs 19)

Introduction

One of the passages which is used by some to support their view that believers are under a new covenant 'system' of law, which they want to label 'The Law of Christ' is 1 Corinthians 9. This, even though that actual phrase does not appear in the passage, any more than the actual teaching that those in Christ are said to be 'under law' appears anywhere at all in the New Testament. Indeed, Paul's use of the phrase in Galatians 6 states boldly that believers live to FULFIL the law of Christ, rather than live 'under' it.

This passage in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth does say that he - Paul - is 'in-lawed to Christ'. We will see what he means by this strange term, used nowhere else in the New Testament, in its context. Although I greatly respect my brothers and sisters in Christ who affirm this, I must confess to a feeling of frustration. It seems to be a degree of almost desperation which takes one phrase from one verse - the only verse where it actually occurs in its 'virgin' form, marries it to a similar, though not exact, phrase from another verse, taken from a different letter entirely, and then constructs a complete view of how believers are to live in the new covenant.And it appears to me that this is done to support the presupposed assertion that 'all men are under law' in some form or other. By 'presupposed', I mean that it has been determined, somehow, before the passage is considered and thus a preconceived meaning has then been 'read back into' the text itself. I will try to explain here why I do not understand this passage to be stating that believers are 'under the law of Christ'. So my aim is not to disprove the whole idea that there IS an expansive 'Law of Christ' which believers are 'under' (I have attempted that elsewhere), but, more simply, that this verse cannot be used to support that view. Thus those who are going to assert it must look elsewhere for their Biblical warrant.

The Importance of Purpose

When we come to a portion of Scripture, the first question to be asked is, 'What is the purpose of this passage?' And the question must be asked in two time-frames:

1. What was the intention of the original author in writing this, in this way, to those he writes to (the 'then-there' purpose)?
2. What is God's purpose in placing this passage in our Bibles? What is the Holy Spirit saying to us - to me - today - in my life (the 'here-now' purpose)?

This identified purpose will determine our understanding of any sub-section and all of the content it uses. Every statement will serve the main purpose. In other words, we cannot just extract single verses, or parts of verses, and take them to mean something out of their context UNLESS that something is plainly stated elsewhere in Scripture - and then, we must understand those truths from their original context, and the way in which they are being integrated in the section we are examining. Otherwise, we end up with 'blackmail letter' style doctrine, where our statements of belief are 'patched' together with words and letters 'cut out' from anywhere we find them, irrespective of their original context. And if we do this, we can make the Bible say exactly what we want it to. My Bible College Principal used to quote a parody of a well-known hymn:

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see,
Some put there by you, and some put there by me."

This actually ends up making the Bible not God's word at all. It is no longer revelation. It has become conformed to the shape I want or expect it to be. Now, please understand that I am not accusing those who disagree with me of this. I am just trying to emphasise the vital importance of letting the Bible speak, without - and we have to make effort to do this - assuming that we know what it is going to say. I think we have to do this afresh every time we come to it anew. For it is all too easy for me to think I have my doctrine 'done and dusted', and not submit it to new light which the Holy Spirit may want to shine on it in my heart and head. Then, I become stagnant in my beliefs and unteachable, I have closed my mind to change, and if and where I am wrong, I am uncorrectable. And to that extent, I preach also to myself, and I invite comment and criticism, in love, on my understanding of God's word from my brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot afford to be one inch above contradiction, because the Lord uses fellowship - other believers - to correct us.

Defining 'Purpose'

When we look at a letter, such as 1 Corinthians, we can follow this question of 'purpose' into finer granularity, by asking our major questions at different levels. I am grateful to a series of preaching classes at study days which were titled 'Preparing the Message', ran and attended by my then-church in Bedford many years ago - but I have never forgotten the valuable tools they equipped me with. Thank the Lord for wise, Godly preachers who are willing and very able to pass on to the next 'generation' of preachers what they have learned. Much of this approach comes from the work of Jay Adams. I would do it like this:

Level 1: What is the purpose of the whole letter?
What is Paul's primary reason for writing to the church at Corinth?

Level 2: What identifiable sections are there within the letter?
This is what Adams calls a 'preaching portion', or a 'passage', and he defines it simply as 'a section with an identifiable purpose'. These may be found by looking for key phrases, like Paul's 'now concerning ...', or 'now about ...', as some translations have it (ch7 vs 1,25; ch 8 vs 1; ch 12 vs 1 et al). Then, we ask:

a) What are the sub-purposes of these sections?

b) How do these sub-purposes serve the main purpose?

Level 3: What identifiable points are being made in 'this' section?
How do these points each serve the purpose of the passage.

The Purpose of 1 Corinthians 9

The Portion containing the Purpose

When we come to 1 Corinthians ch9, then, let us first ask, 'what whole portion of the letter does this piece come in?'
My analysis would indicate that this section starts with ch 8 vs 1 - Paul's:

"Now about food sacrificed to idols:"

And pretty quickly, Paul has identified what is behind this practical issue at Corinth. It is the question of a Christian's 'rights'.

In ch 10 vs 23, he is still on track:

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others."

... and I would suggest (others may disagree) that his argument continues all the way through ch 10 - and I would also add that ch 11 vs 1 belongs to the end of ch 10, not the beginning of a new section:

"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

So the whole paragraph, at the end of the section, reads (from ch 10 vs 31, through ch11 vs 1):

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

I conclude, then, that in ch 9 vs 19 - 23, Paul is speaking about the believer and his 'rights'. And he is using himself as an example for these Corinthian Christians to follow. And I want to state emphatically here that therefore it is not Paul's purpose to teach us about the believer's relationship to 'new law', whether that be called 'the Law of Christ' or something else. It is not his primary purpose in these verses, which are an illustration of his main point. Or, for that matter, in the whole of this letter.

... And the Purpose itself

So then, what IS the purpose of this particular portion in ch 9 (within the scope of the ch 8vs1 to 11 vs 1 passage)? Well, we can look within it for key phrases which will tell us. We must read what has gone before to see how Paul has arrived at this point. Why is he saying what he is saying, and why is he saying it just here? And I would answer that he is illustrating how the believer should consider his 'rights', in the freedom Christ brings, by looking at what Paul does in this specific respect - in the preaching of the Gospel.

There are clues:

1. This is a defence.
   Look at verse 3 - he states it plainly. There were those at Corinth who wanted to judge him.
2. This is about 'rights'. If there is one key phrase in this chapter, my vote would be for verse 12:
   
   "On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ."
   
   That is his thrust. That is what he is getting at.

His argument, logically presented, can be laid out like this:

1. Paul is a God-appointed Apostle and leader of the church, generally, and specifically in a personal way to the Corinthians
2. All those, who are leaders in the church, and in Christ, have rights.
3. Paul and his 'team' have refused to use these rights (vs 12, 15).
   (Interesting, by the way, that he considers that something that is 'commanded' by the Lord - vs 14 - can be waived by him)
4. He does so so that he cannot be accused of 'making a profit' from 'peddling' the Gospel. He wants it to be offered free of charge (vs18). You see, he is saying that even in this, he is a 'recruit', not a volunteer. He is 'compelled' to preach. He is 'discharging a trust'. He does not even profit in the self-satisfaction of a willing volunteer. He has been 'sommissioned' by God to preach it, and preach it he must.
5. (Implied and 'called' into his argument later) Paul is saying 'this is how I think and act. Follow my example'

When is 'freedom' not 'freedom'?

So here, then, he makes these statements. Christ has set him free, with no obligation to anyone. But he has gone on to make himself a slave. He has decided to behave as if he is not free, in the wonderful, supreme aim of winning many to Christ. He will use all means to get alongside the lost, Jew or Gentile, so that he can sound the message of salvation in their ear, with as little controversy caused by 'lifestyle' as possible. He will not compromise his faith. But he will give up everything else for the sake of the Gospel being heard. (Lord, may that be my heart too!). And now, he explains how he does so. But note. The primary purpose of this section is to explain why believers should not always be insisting on their 'rights'. They should be looking to live out love, even where it means sacrificing those rights.

When is freedom not freedom? When it is laid down at the feet of the risen Christ.

"Love one another as I have loved you."
"Greater love has no man than this - that he lays down his life for his friends."

Paul - Who do you think you're talking too?

"To the Jews" ...

First, to his own countrymen, to the Jews:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. "

Here is the logic, unpacked step by step.

1. Jews are under law (Mosaic law)
2. Paul is not under that law, but
3. He will take up the practices and the behaviour of the Jew in order to get alongside them and win them for Christ. So that the challenge of the Gospel is not a matter of 'Jewishness', but of Christ.

Then, to the Gentile:

"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."

The logic:

1. Gentiles do not have the law
2. Paul is not 'free from' law - he is overseen by God's law; he is 'in-lawed' ('within the jurisdiction of', as Thomas Schreiner says) to Christ, but
3. He will become as if he does not have the law in order to win those who are like this.

... and he goes on. he has become weak to win the weak etc...

So we see that this phrase 'in-lawed to Christ' comes in the midst of a passage with a purpose. The intent of that phrase is not to teach us about a law which believers are under - not in any sense. To make it say that tears it out of its context and gives it a meaning Paul never intended. To do so turns the phrase itself into its own purpose, when it is actually being used as an illustration to make another point - a point which serves the main message. Now, I am not saying that we cannot gain insights and information from these 'side-points'. Every verse of Scripture is to be 'mined' for its full content - all that it can and does reveal about Christ. But as a former college colleague of mine has put it many times, 'the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things'. And we do not take 'asides' and base fully-fledged doctrinal assertion on them. 

A Turn of Phrase

One of the problems with translating from one language to another is that subtlety is sometimes lost. Plays on words, which serve their purpose in the original, do not come over. Some assert that the use of the Greek 'ennomos' ('inlawed-to') instead of 'huponomos' ('under law') is a technicality, and that these are equivalent words. But it looks to me that on these statements, Paul is engaging his listeners with some interesting contrasts:

'To those UNDER the law,
I became like one UNDER the law,
though I myself am NOT UNDER the law.'

'To those OUTSIDE the law,
I became like one OUTSIDE the law,
though I am not free from God's law but am INSIDE Christ's law.'

... or more literally:
'To those UNLAWED ...
... I am INLAWED to Christ'

You get the idea.

And I think that neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided using the phrase 'under law', specifically so as not to confuse the readers (or us). Paul seems to go out of his way NOT to say that believers are under law - of any kind.

Conclusions

So to take this phrase from its context, when it has been used in a subsidiary way in Paul's argument and then to twin it with a similar - though not identical - phrase in a completely different context and a completely different letter, seems strange to me. To treat God's word in this way seems odd, unnatural, not logical. And likely to arrive at misdirected conclusions. And, finally, to summarise:

1. The main purpose of 1 Corinthians 9 is to argue that Christian believers should, from a heart of love, lay aside even their 'rights' in order to serve each other in Christ and to preach the Gospel to those who are not in Christ - NOT to teach about the relationship believers now have to some form or other of law.
2. Paul does not say that believers are 'under' Christ's law, he says that they are 'inside' it.
3. I think Paul (and the Holy Spirit) can be trusted in his use of words. he is, after all, a trained lawyer. Ever dealt with lawyers?

So, at the least - the very least - the use of this particular verse as a main 'pillar' to support a doctrine of 'the Law of Christ' is a dubious use of Scripture - a bad hermeneutic practice. I know little about house building, but I do know a little! In a house, there are two types of walls - load-bearing and non-load-bearing, or 'partition' walls. if you are building upstairs extensions onto your house, it is sheer folly to place all the weight of your new room, or whatever, on a non-load-bearing wall. The clue is in the name!. To build important doctrine on the interpretation, out of context, of verses or passages from Scripture is equally foolish.

And thus, I strongly submit for your consideration, as ‘sensible people’ (1 Corinthians ch 10 vs 15 ) that this verse will not bear the weight of the interpretation some are placing upon it. This verse does not 'preach to us' that there is a 'Law of Christ' that we, and all believers, are under.

Storming the Kingdom of Heaven

The 'interface' between the old and new covenants

In the UK, our met office recently began giving storms names – similar to what the US do with hurricanes. As I write, we’ve just had Henry, Imogen and Jake. The idea, I believe, is to make the threatened public more aware of the ‘character’ – and thus the danger – these storms pose to us. This begs the question ‘what qualifies as a storm’. One dictionary definition is ‘a violent disturbance in weather’. This gave rise to another use - some soldiers or warriors who displayed great ferocity in battle being described as ‘stormers’ – Star Wars has borrowed the term from elsewhere, and it has become ‘storm troopers’. And when a city or castle was besieged in a fierce, fast onslaught designed to quickly overwhelm – that was ‘storming’.

Jesus spoke of the ‘storming’ of the kingdom of heaven.
As recorded in Matthew 11, He had just received a deputation from the imprisoned John the Baptist, asking was He really the Christ, or was it to be someone else they should look for. Whether John asks for himself, for reassurance, or whether he was seeking to establish truth for his disciples is unclear. Jesus’ response is to send them back with the witness of their own eyes – the signs of the Messiah:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matthew 11 vs 4 – 6)

Mostly referring to Isaiah 35 and 61, Jesus simply lists what the prophet said would be the indications that Messiah had come. This, they were witnessing. But, after the departure of John’s commissioned representatives, Jesus goes on to speak to the crowd about John. He appears to want to make it very clear just who John is, as well as to make it very clear to John just who he is. He begins with a challenge:

“What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.””(Matthew 11 vs 7 – 10) 

The quote is from Malachi 3. John as well as Jesus has been promised, as the forerunner sent to prepare the way for the Messiah to come. Jesus sets a challenge. When the people had heard of the preaching of John in the wilderness, why had they gone chasing out into the middle of nowhere to hear him? What had they expected? A purely natural phenomena (hardly worth a desert journey), or a regal figure (looking in the wrong place for that)? Oh, they were looking for a prophet. God had not spoken by a prophet to Israel for 400 years – Malachi had actually been the last one. So little wonder that they were excited. Jesus wants them to be certain that John was not only ‘a prophet’, he was ‘THAT’ prophet – the ‘Elijah’ who had been promised (vs14). Now, here is the distinguishing teaching. And the hardest part of this portion to understand. Jesus says:

“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.” (vs 11 – 14) 

Jesus does not denigrate John, or look down on him in any way. The difference the Lord identifies here is one of role, not person. John’s ruthless truth ministry, and his faithfulness to his calling is unblemished. Even to the last, where he ‘beards the lion’, challenging a corrupt ruler (Herod, who had taken his own brother’s wife for himself) in his own palace, John is God’s man. And to the end, where, having been chosen all his days to surrender his heart for God, and for his Messiah, ‘the Baptist’ is then called to surrender his head, John remains constant.

The last law Prophet 

“For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” 

First, note that Jesus groups John with all of the forward-looking prophecy of the whole Old Testament – the Law and the Prophets. John is an anointed (with the Spirit, from before he was born) prophet from a Levitical (priestly) family. But instead of serving in the Temple, as his father did, John serves in the wilderness – where the Law came from. ‘All the Prophets and the Law prophesied … UNTIL John’. John is the last of the line. Equally inspired, equally authoritative as the bringer of God’s words, John is the last of the line. Something crucial is about to change.

The greatest of the great 

 “… for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. “ (Luke 1 vs 15) 

Second, note the Lord’s high consideration of this man – the son of His mother’s cousin. There is none greater in his ‘class’ – he excels them all. The Spirit anointed the prophets of old when they were prepared and equipped to bring His word. But He came and went. The purpose of the anointing was to empower them to prophesy. But John was filled with the Holy Spirit before birth – before he could even speak (Luke 1 vs 15). And this is testified to by his pre-natal acknowledgement of His Lord:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Luke 1 vs 41) 

(Share with me, for a moment, in that. Here are these two women, the one old and very pregnant, the other very young and just pregnant, having a praise party together in the light of their unborn sons, and THEIR relationship. There is something ‘weirdly wonderful’ in that, is there not?)

He(John) IS ‘the Elijah who is to come’ My bet is that Jesus’ mother, Mary, had passed on to Jesus the story of Elizabeth, John’s mother. He would have known about God’s prophecy, from the mouth of the angel, to John’s father:

“… And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1 vs 17) 

And of course, in any case, as the Christ, Jesus would have been fully aware of God’s purpose and intention in the ministry of John. How could the ‘forerunnee’ not know what His ‘forerunner’ was about?

The Siege of heaven 

What, then, is this talk of ‘violent people’ and the siege of heaven’s kingdom? Who is it who dares storm heaven – apparently with the blessing of Jesus Himself? What can this be about? What is Jesus saying? There is only one conclusion I can reach. But before I tell you what that is, I want to trace how I get there.

1. As the old covenant is replaced – made obsolete, the book of Hebrews tells us – by the new, there has to be an ‘interface’ between the two. By which I mean a ‘meeting point’ where the old covenant becomes the new. I believe this happens in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ before the cross. 
2. In John the Baptist we have the ultimate representative of the old covenant. He is both priest and prophet. He is filled with the Spirit, even more so than Elijah had been before him, in an extraordinary way. And the old covenant prophets, of course, were preachers of the Law, every one of them. 
3. Because John is appointed by God in his ministry of preaching the Law, and the due repentance it should lead to (which is as far as the Law could go before the Messiah came), yet he is ‘the end of the line’ for the old covenant, he himself is a ‘shadow’. He bodily represents what now must be replaced by promised ‘substance’ – Christ. 

Thus when he states:

"The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less" (John 3 vs 29, 30) 
 … John is not merely speaking of his own ministry giving way to that of Christ, he is prophetically speaking of the Law giving way to Gospel; the old covenant being surpassed by the new.

Thus we see, here, that what is taking place is a kind of on-the-spot typology, with the type and its anti-type in the frame at the same time. Thus, we are given to better understand what Jesus is talking about when He says:

“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.” 

You will notice three time frames:

• Before John (‘the Elijah who was to come’) 
• From John to Jesus (‘until now’) 
• After Jesus (inferred) 

‘Before’, Jesus says, all the prophets and the Law prophesied. And there was the promise of ‘another Elijah’. Then John appears as that promised, special forerunner of Messiah.

‘After’, Jesus gives us no more information here.

 But in between – this is where this intriguing description is given.
What is happening in this interlude? No doubt, it is referring to the earthly ministry of both John and Jesus, and the overlap between those ministries. The ‘baptism of repentance’ is being replaced by the ‘baptism of faith for the forgiveness of sins’. Jesus’ disciples are baptising more people than John did – even John’s own disciples are following Him (John ch 4). What is happening?

 The covenant people of Israel are ‘migrating’ from the Law to the Lord; from the old to the new.

 And I think this is what Jesus describes. That this transition is a violent upheaval. That what was defended as unapproachable by the Law is now accessible.

It is as if the city has been sieged. The battering rams have been at the gates – pounding and pounding and pounding. And eventually, the gates have given way and been burst wide open. Now – ah, now – the warriors stream into the city to take possession of that which they could not before. The city is theirs, as they take it by force.

This an astounding picture, is it not? In the hearts of those who have heard the Saviour’s word, and have come to know and believe that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God, there is a boldness, a ruthless daring which lays a hold now on that which previously they could not even touch. See these ‘kingdom invaders’ flood into the kingdom, through those Christ-opened gates, which will never be closed to them again. See the former timidity, hesitance, fear .. dissolved and disappearing as they discover, in their hearts of faith, now no resistance to their approach to God Himself. And as they take up, with both hands, eagerly, joyfully, these promises of God in the very person of His own Son, they are, at the last, inside the kingdom. And not only inside, they are citizens of it.

Elsewhere, Jesus describes this termination of the ‘rule’ of the old covenant as an axe having been laid to the tree. It is in the process, even as He teaches, of being chopped down. And in its place – the True Vine. But this is upheaval, a tumultuous business. There is devastation and there is a ‘violent’ change. So this is the beginning. The refugees who have been under that crippling burden of Law for so long are coming home. As they discover the One to whom it pointed, little wonder that they flee to Him with such passion – such violent intent to secure and appropriate what the promises of God had been all about all along. The glory of Christ!